Occurrence of alexithymia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension and their combination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective is to study occurrence of alexithymia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM-2), arterial hypertension (AH) and their combination. 3 groups of patients have been examined. Group 1 included 25 patients having DM 2 without AH (55 {51; 59} y.o., 7 (28%) men); group 2 included 25 patients of the same age and gender having DM-2 combined with AH; group 3 included 25 patients having AH and normoglycemia (57 {48; 62} y.o., 7 (28%) men). A number of evaluations have been done, such as a survey based on Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-26), clinical and laboratory studies. The patients in all the 3 groups had a similar age, level of education and the number of working people didn’t differ. The patients in groups 1 and 2 received the same therapy for DM-2, level of glycosylated hemoglobin and incidence of DM-related chronic complications proved similar in these groups. High-grade alexithymia was detected in 14 (56%) patients in group 1, in 12 (48%) patients in group 2 (summary 52% patients with DM-2), in 9 (36%) patients in group 3. Group 3 showed absence of alexithymia (score TAS-26 < 62) more often (10 (40%)) as compared with groups 1 and 2 (3 (12%) patients in each group; χ21-3, р = 0,02). A higher score according to TAS-26 was detected in patients having DM-2 (group 1 + group 2) as compared having AH and normoglycemia (74 {69; 79} vs 69 {59; 74}, Mann – Whitney T-test, р = 0,022). 26 (52%) patients with DM-2 were detected to have high-grade alexithymia, while its occurrence was not connected to the presence of AH. Comparing with the patients having AH and normoglycemia, the patients with DM-2 more rarely showed the absence of alexithymia; the latter also had the higher score TAS-26.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".