Alexithymia, impulsiveness, emotion, and eating dyscontrol: similarities and differences between narcolepsy type 1 and type 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-sleep symptoms, as depression, anxiety and overweight, are often encountered in narcoleptic patients. The purposes of this study are to evaluate mood, impulsiveness, emotion, alexithymia, and eating behavior in patients with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) and narcolepsy type 2 (NT2) compared to healthy controls and to investigate possible correlations between clinical-demographic data, polysomnographic parameters, and subjective questionnaires. Consecutive patients affected by NT1 and NT2 underwent to Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale, Barratt Impulsivity Scale-11, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and Eating Disorder Evaluation Questionnaire. Daytime sleepiness was assessed using Epworth sleepiness score. Data were compared with controls. Fourteen NT1, 10 NT2, and 24 healthy subjects were enrolled. Toronto Alexithymia Scale total score was significantly higher in NT1 than NT2. Compared to controls, NT1 patients exhibited significantly higher scores at Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. A positive correlation between hypnagogic hallucinations and Difficulties in emotion regulation was found. NT1 and NT2 share several psycho-emotional aspects, but whereas NT1 patients exhibit more depressive mood and emotion dysregulation compared to controls, alexithymic symptoms are more prominent in NT1 than NT2. Hypnagogic hallucinations, emotion dysregulation, and alexithymia appear to be correlated, supporting the hypothesis of mutual interaction of the above areas in narcolepsy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".