Alexithymia in adolescents in Poland: an important issue in the holistic approach to patients’ care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Alexithymia is defined as a disturbed ability to identify and verbally express emotions with a limited imaginative capacity as well as externally oriented thinking.The literature on alexithymia is limited and scarce research concentrated on alexithymia in different gender groups.Aim: As alexithymia may influence the therapeutic outcome, the objective of the study was to assess the prevalence of alexithymia in adolescents in Poland, paying special attention to gender differences.Material and methods: This cross-sectional study was run on a group of 730 high school students in Poland.The mean age of this group was 17.05 ±1.18 years (age range: 15-19 years).Alexithymia was assessed with Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20).Results: Alexithymia was found in 31.0% of adolescents.56.0% of subjects presented with signs of at least intermediate (borderline) alexithymia.Significantly more females than males suffered from alexithymia (37.0% and 20.8%, respectively; p < 0.001).TAS-20 scores were also significantly higher in females than males (55.59 ±12.32 points and 49.40 ±12.00, respectively; p < 0.001).The same phenomenon was observed for the following domains of alexithymia: difficulty in identifying feelings (DIF) and difficulty in describing feelings (DDF).However, there was no difference in gender distribution in the externally oriented thinking (EOT) domain.Conclusions: Alexithymia was shown to be common among adolescents in our country.More females than males suffer from this condition.This seems to be of importance in the holistic approach to patients' care.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".