Moderating effect of alexithymia between problem gambling and psychotic experiences in university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most of the young individuals with problem gambling (PG) or psychotic experiences (PEs) are less prone to seek medical help. Therefore, community-based studies investigating the relationship between these entities in non-clinical young people across a continuum of severity are warranted. To this end, the present study proposes to advance knowledge on the mechanisms that potentially underlie the association between PG and PEs, by examining the role of a potential moderator, i.e. alexithymia, in this relationship. METHODS: A total of 399 participants enrolled in this study (mean age = 21.58 ± 3.20 years) participated in an online cross-sectional survey. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), the Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief (PQ-B), and the Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20) were used. RESULTS: Thirty-three (8.3%) participants had problem-gambling, whereas 13 (3.3%) were probable pathological gamblers. Moderation analysis results adjusted over confounders (age, household crowding index, marital status, personal history of mental disorder, other illegal drug use) showed that the interaction PG by alexithymia (p = .018) was significantly associated with PEs scores. At moderate (Beta = 1.93) and high (Beta = 3.38) levels of alexithymia, more PG was significantly associated with more PEs scores. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that GP may have a different impact on PEs depending on the individual's level of alexithymia. As such, both alexithymia and gambling behavior should be considered in the clinical assessment of young people who present with PEs, which can help in implementing more tailored and individualized treatment plans.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".