EATING DISORDERS AND ALEXITHYMIA IN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Researches on troubles of emotional control in addictions, such as the eating disorders (ED) have mainly focused their attention on alexithymia concept, defined by Sifneos as a deficit in emotion processing.Aims: To estimate prevalence rate of alexithymia and ED.to explore the relationships between alexithymia and ED in college students. Methods:College students, via Facebook, were recruited online, during the first half of February 2018, to participate in an online survey on ED.We used an anonymous self u2013questionnaire composed of 57 items designed to record some sociodemographic and clinical data.The screening of ED was made thanks to the Test Eating Attitudes (EAT-26).Alexithymia was evaluated by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, (TAS-20).Results:The mean age of students was 17 years. In terms of gender distribution, 57.1% of the sample was girls. Body mass index average was 21.21. The frequency of alexithymics was 40.5% with a mean score of 60.02. The frequency of students with potential ED was 33.3% with a mean score of 15.71. This prevalence of ED is higher among girls than boys (37.5% vs 27.8%, p =0.508). The prevalence of potential ED in the alexithymics (47.1%) was significantly higher than that in the non-alexithymics (24%).The TAS-20 scores were significantly correlated to the presence of ED (p = 0.026). The EAT-26 scores was significantly correlated to the Externally-Oriented Thinking subscale of theTAS-20 (p=0.001).Conclusion: Our study emphasizes the relationship between alexithymia and disorder of eating behavior among college students showing the difficulty in discriminating between feelings and physical sensations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".