MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405224689 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae161.073

(091) THE PREDICTIVE EFFECT OF ALEXITHYMIA IN RELATION TO IMPULSIVITY IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AND WITHOUT COMPULSIVE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR DISORDER

2024· article· en· W4405224689 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrícia do Espírito Santo Gonçalves, Marco de Tubino Scanavino

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaImpulsivityPsychologyClinical psychologyRelation (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction There is a consensus among researchers on the main characteristics of compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD): impaired control of behavior; clinical suffering; continuity of sexual behavior despite significant impairment in important areas in the person’s life. Previous studies already show the connection between alexithymia and CSBD, as well as impulsivity and CSBD. Objective This study investigated the predictive effect of alexithymia in relation to impulsivity in individuals with and without CSBD. Methods Cross-sectional, observational and exploratory study, with a sample of 451 participants. Of these, 324 (71.8%) individuals with CSBD and 127 (28.1%) controls. They completed the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS - 26) questionnaires. Exclusion criteria were participants who met diagnostic criteria for paraphilic disorders (DSM-5685), gender dysphoria (DSM-5451), schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders (DSM-5 87), current hypomanic or manic episode of mood disorder (DSM-5123), neurocognitive disorders (DSM-5591) and other mental disorders (DSM-5707). Results In the univariate linear regression which dependent variable is impulsivity, and the independent variables are the four factors of the TAS - 26: TAS Factor 1 – Difficulty identifying and describing feelings and distinguishing feelings from bodily sensations; TAS Factor 2 – difficulty in daydreaming (fantasizing); TAS Factor 3 – Focus on external events rather than internal experiences; TAS Total score. The variables that presented a p value of up to 0.20 and were subsequently included in the multivariate regression model: presenting CSBD (β = 15.41; p-value = <0.001); TAS Factor 1 (β = 0.84; p-value = <0.001); TAS Factor 2 (β = -1.14; p-value = 0.0001); TAS Factor 3 (β = 1.87; p-value = <0.001); TAS Factor 4 (β = 0.67; p-value = 0.096) and TAS Total Score (β = 0.63; p-value = <0.001). The following variables with independent associative effects were observed, namely: TAS Factor 1 (β = 1.36; p-value = <0.001), TAS Factor 3 (β = 1.85; p-value = <0.001) and TAS Total score (β = −0.92; p-value = 0.008). Conclusions The study confirmed that alexithymia is associated with impulsivity, the more alexithymic the person is, the more impulsive behavior they will present. Disclosure No.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207