Silent Struggles Within: Alexithymia Unveiled in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: In recent years, the presence of alexithymia in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has gained more attention, and several studies have evaluated this relationship. However, no clear conclusion has been reported yet. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand the association between IBS and alexithymia. Methods: We performed a systematic search on the medical databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus using predefined keywords to identify observational studies assessing the association between IBS and alexithymia. The included studies diagnosed IBS using the Rome criteria, and alexithymia was evaluated using the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) score. We used The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the quality of included studies. The primary summary outcome was the mean difference in TAS-20 scores. Results: We included 7 studies involving 1,513 individuals in our qualitative analysis, with 6 of them included in our quantitative analysis. All studies were considered to be of satisfactory quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria. We found significantly higher TAS-20 scores in IBS patients compared to controls (8.063 [95% CI, 2.554-13.572]). However, no significant mean difference in TAS-20 scores was observed in IBS vs inflammatory bowel disease patients (0.884 [95% CI -2.536-4.304]). Conclusions: We demonstrated that IBS is associated with an increased risk of developing alexithymia. However, our study did not show a significant difference in TAS-20 scores between patients with IBS compared to inflammatory bowel disease.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".