PSYCHOSOMATIC ASPECTS IN THE COURSE OF LICHEN PLANUS OF THE ORAL MUCOSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To determine the prevalence and severity of alexithymia in patients with oral manifestation of lichen planus (LP). Methodology. The study involved 90 young and middle-aged patients (mean age 49.4 ± 8.9 years). The patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 – 34 people with oral manifestations of LP, group 2 – 16 people with leukoplakia, group 3 – 40 people without clinical manifestations of diseases of the oral mucosa. A dental examination was conducted, including an assessment of the condition of the oral mucosa, and a standardized questionnaire survey using a Russian-language validated version of the 20-point Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Results. Alexithymia was detected in 55.88% with various forms of LP, which is statistically 2.2 times higher (p < 0.001) than in patients with leukoplakia of the oral mucosa (25%) and 5.6 times higher (p < 0.001) than in patients of group 3 who do not have diseases of the oral mucosa. The average score of alexithymia in patients with LP was 80.5 ± 2.7 points, which is statistically significantly higher than in the group of patients with leukoplakia (61.0 ± 4.2 points, p = 0.006) and in the control group (44.1 ± 2.9 points, p < 0.001). A higher incidence of alexithymia was revealed in patients with exudative hyperemic form (58.33%, P1 = 0.041) and erosive-ulcerative form of LP (57.14%, p = 0.049). Quantitative assessment of alexithymia showed that among patients with LP, the greatest severity of alexithymia was found in patients with exudative hyperemic form of LP – 85.9 = 1.5 points, (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The data obtained allow us to consider LP as a disease in the development of which there is a psychosomatic component. The presence of alexithymia and the degree of its severity can be considered as a predictive or predictive candidate factor.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".