The Impacts of Alexithymia and Sexual Distress on Sexual Functioning Among Portuguese Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recognizing own’s emotions seems to have an important role regarding not only our overall well-being, but also our sexual functioning. Aims: The aim of this study is to analyze the association or impact of alexithymia on female sexual functioning. Methods: 459 Portuguese women, with a mean age of 34.57 years (SD = 10.27), ranging from 18 to 65 years, completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Female Sexual Distress Scale – Revised (FSDS-R) and, additionally, completed the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), indicating if and when a sexual relationship occurred in the last month. Results: The results showed that higher levels of alexithymia were associated with worse sexual functioning and higher levels of sexual distress. Higher levels of sexual distress were associated with worse sexual functioning. It was possible to establish a significant linear regression model between dimensions of alexithymia (difficulties in identifying feelings and difficulties in describing feelings) and sexual distress in sexual functioning; the variables together explained about 45.2% of sexual functioning in these women. Conclusions: The results emphasize the relevance of alexithymia’s dimensions in sexual functioning concerning women with or without sexual dysfunction, since they present themselves as significant predictors. Professionals working in women's sexual health should take this into account for more effective assessment and intervention in matters concerning sexual health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".