A systematic review of the relationship between alexithymia and emotional eating in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elucidating psychological characteristics associated with emotional eating may further inform interventions for this behaviour related to eating psychopathology. The present systematic review aimed to examine the relationship between alexithymia and self-reported emotional eating in adults, and provide a narrative synthesis of the existing literature. Using the PRISMA method for systematic reviews, six databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science) were searched for peer-reviewed, quantitative research published between January 1994 and 20th July 2021, when the searches were conducted. Eligible articles investigated the association between alexithymia, as measured by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994), and emotional eating, as measured by any validated self-report instrument. Nine cross-sectional articles were reviewed, and risk of bias was assessed using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (Downes, Brennan, Williams, & Dean, 2016). A narrative synthesis of articles suggests positive associations between alexithymia and self-reported emotional eating. Five measures of emotional eating were used across articles, with limited but consistent evidence for the relationship between alexithymia and emotional eating as measured by the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (Van strien et al., 1986). Further research is required to add evidence to the nature of the relationship between alexithymia and emotional eating, and to explore mechanisms that might underpin any relationships. Understanding the association between alexithymia and emotional eating may support strategies and interventions for those seeking help for emotional eating and related eating behaviours.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".