An Examination of Alexithymia Levels in Pregnant Women with and without Gestational Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Gestational hypertension (GHT) is a common pregnancy-related hypertensive disorder that presents not only obstetric risks but may also adversely impact maternal emotional well-being.One psychological construct relevant in this context is alexithymia, characterized by difficulties in identifying, describing, and processing emotions.Although both conditions have been studied independently, their potential relationship remains insufficiently explored in the literature.Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive, and correlational study was conducted at a tertiary healthcare center between August 30 and December 15, 2023.A total of 67 pregnant women at or beyond the 20 th gestational week were enrolled, including 32 with a diagnosis of GHT and 35 normotensive controls.Data were collected using a sociodemographic questionnaire and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20).Statistical analyses included independent samples t-tests, chi-square tests, and Pearson correlation analysis.Results: Demographic and obstetric characteristics were comparable between groups.However, the GHT group had significantly higher TAS-20 total scores (50.88±8.40)than the control group (45.46±7.92;p=0.0086).Subscale analyses showed significantly higher scores in Difficulty Identifying Feelings (DIF) and Externally Oriented Thinking (EOT) among GHT participants, while Difficulty Describing Feelings (DDF) did not differ.The prevalence of definite alexithymia (TAS-20 ≥61) was greater in the GHT group (21.8%) than in controls (8.6%).Discussion and Conclusion: Pregnant women with GHT exhibit higher levels of alexithymia, particularly in emotional awareness and externally focused cognitive styles.These findings highlight the importance of incorporating psychological screening into routine prenatal care for women with hypertensive pregnancies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".