Association between Dental Neglect and Alexithymia among Adult Dental Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To show the association between dental neglect and alexithymia among adult dental patients. Settings and Design: At times, certain individuals with dental neglect may experience trouble in communicating and/or understanding information, ability to identify, and describe their feelings termed as alexithymia. Hence, recognition of alexithymia in a dental setting is important, because it worsens the dentist-patient relationship, especially among patients who neglect their dental health. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adult patients (≥20 years). Patients received a questionnaire assessing dental neglect [six-item Dental Neglect Scale (DNS)], alexithymia [20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)], and demographic profile. Statistical Analysis: Data were analyzed with standard statistical software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 22). P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total sample of 1067 individuals comprising 553 (51.8%) females and 514 (48.2%) males with a mean age 35.33 ± 11.49 years participated in the study. Our findings showed that females had higher mean scores for both DNS and total TAS-20 and its factors. With increase in age and education, the mean scores of the DNS had significantly increased and mean scores of total TAS-20 and its factors had decreased with increase in age and education. Conclusion: The above study findings have supported the hypothesis that there is no association between dental neglect and alexithymia among adult dental patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".