Alexithymia and delayed ejaculation: a contribute to understand a neglected sexual dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Alexithymia construct describes a set of personality features as difficulty in identifying and communicating emotions to others, reduced imaginal and fantasy activity, externally oriented cognitive style. High or moderate alexithymia levels have yet been documented in men with Erectile Dysfunction (ED) and Premature Ejaculation (PE). The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of alexithymia in men with Delayed Ejaculation (DE), comparing such results with data found from other Male Sexual Dysfunctions (MSD). Design and Methods: To 44 patients with DE diagnosed by DSM-IV-TR criteria, range age 20-63, was administered Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), a validated tool used to evaluate alexithymia levels. Results: Only 9.1% of the patients could be categorized as alexithymic (TAS20>61), 4.5% of them were placed in the grey area (52-60) while 86.4 % of the sample were found to be non-alexithymic (<51). The overall average score of the TAS-20 was 44.70. The preliminary results show that alexithymia construct does not seem to be correlated with DE, differently from other MSD, where presence of such condition was found in about 63% of patients. Despite the well-known hyper-control configuration, patients with DE present no difficulty in identifying and communicating emotions to others. This datum is probably connected to the greater social acceptance of DE than PE and ED: the symptom doesn’t affect the core male identity. In a somatopsychic point of view, the consequent fewer individual and relational distress could represent an important protective factor from creating or exacerbating high levels of alexithymia. Conclusions: The preliminary data seem to suggest that DE, not being correlated to alexithymia construct, is maybe based on other individual psychogenic features. On a clinical level, these results suggest to carry out more researches on this aspect, in order to validate the various etiological theorizations yet existent to select the better therapeutic approach for this dysfunction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".