Occurrence of Alexithymia and Its Association with Sports Practice from a Sample of University Students: Results from a French Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of alexithymia in a sample of university students and to determine its association with specific sports practice characteristics (competition and training). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, anthropometric data and characteristics of sport practice were collected, as well as level of alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale, (TAS-20)). Results: The study included 253 French university students who completed a questionnaire specifying their regular sports practice and level of alexithymia (TAS-20). We found 76 subjects (30%) who had proven alexithymia and 92 (36.4%) who were borderline alexithymic. A significant positive relationship between alexithymia and the weekly amount of training practice was observed. It should be noted that students who engage in more than 5 h of physical activity are more prone to be borderline or alexithymic (respectively, 19.6 and 19.7% versus 7.1% for non-alexithymics; p = 0.03). Conclusion: With a 30% frequency, alexithymia is more prevalent in this context than in the general population. Furthermore, alexithymia and borderline alexithymia are most favorably associated with higher physical activity (over 5 h per week).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".