Does alexithymia have a mediating effect between impulsivity and emotional-behavioral functioning in adolescents with binge eating disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Binge eating Disorder (BeD) has recently been included in the Dsm-5. like many other eating disorder symptoms, BED is often present in adolescence. No studies have specifically investigated the influence of impulsivity and alexithymia on the emotional-behavioural functioning of adolescents diagnosed with BeD. Method: in this study, we recruited n = 162 adolescents (age range: 14-18) and divided them into two groups: 78 adolescents diagnosed with BeD, according to the Dsm-5 criteria (group A), and 84 healthy controls (group B). participants completed the youth self-report (ysr/11-18), the toronto Alexithymia scale (tAs-20) and the Barratt impulsiveness scale (Bis-11). Results: the results showed that group A had higher scores of alexithymia, impulsivity and maladaptive emotionalbehavioural functioning than Group B. Furthermore, alexithymia had a mediating effect on the relationship between impulsivity and emotional-behavioural functioning. Conclusions: These results allow us to hypothesise that alexithymia is a key variable influencing the emotional and behavioural problems of adolescents affected by BED. Our data confirms the previous studies underlining the association of impulsivity and alexithymia with the diagnosis of BeD in adolescents, and our study contributes to the previous literature, emphasising the central role of alexithymia in the mediating effect between impulsivity and emotional and behavioural problems. these results suggest the importance of promoting prevention and treatment polices focused on alexithymia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".