Association Between Alexithymia, Sexual Dysfunctions, and Dyadic Adjustment in Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Chronic mental disorders may negatively affect sexual functioning and dyadic adjustment. This study aimed to investigate the associations between alexithymia, sexual dysfunctions, and dyadic adjustment in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) and to compare these variables with those of healthy controls. Materials and Methods: This case–control study included 72 patients with OCD and 82 sociodemographically matched healthy controls. All participants completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX), Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), and Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Group comparisons were conducted using independent t-tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, and chi-square tests, while correlations were examined using Pearson’s analysis. Results: Patients with OCD had significantly higher TAS-20 scores (60.97 ± 11.15 vs. 43.18 ± 8.86, p < 0.001) and ASEX total scores (18.33 ± 4.93 vs. 13.76 ± 3.55, p < 0.001), alongside lower DAS scores (total and all subscales, p < 0.001) than controls. Within the OCD group, TAS-20 scores correlated positively with the total ASEX score (r = 0.366, p = 0.002) and negatively with the total DAS score (r = −0.339, p = 0.004) and subscales (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Patients with OCD exhibit elevated alexithymia, greater sexual dysfunction, and reduced dyadic adjustment compared with healthy controls. Furthermore, alexithymia in patients with OCD is associated with impaired sexual functioning and dyadic adjustment. Assessing alexithymic traits and addressing them in treatment may improve social and familial functioning in this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".