Relazione tra gioco d’azzardo patologico, alessitimia, sintomi dissociativi e impulsivita: un confronto fra un gruppo di giocatori in trattamento e un gruppo di controllo.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obiettivi: data la centralità di impulsività, alessitimia e dissociazione nella dinamica del comportamento di gioco, il presente studio ha esaminato il ruolo di queste caratteristiche in relazione al Gioco d’Azzardo Pa-tologico (GAP). L’obiettivo dello studio è stato quello di analizzare queste caratteristiche in due diversi gruppi di partecipanti. Materiali e metodi: i partecipanti sono stati 100 soggetti (94 uomini, 6 donne) divisi in due gruppi: 1) un gruppo non clinico composto da 50 soggetti, e 2) un gruppo clinico composto da 50 giocatori patologici. Sono stati utiliz-zati i seguenti strumenti: 1) South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS); 2) Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11); 3) Twenty-Items Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); 4) Dissociative Experience Scale Revised (DES-II). Risultati: i risultati hanno mostrato che il gruppo clinico ha ottenuto punteggi più elevati rispetto al gruppo non clinico a tutte le scale e le sottoscale. L’analisi correlazionale ha indicato che l’alessitimia è correlata positivamen-te con la dissociazione (r=.46, p<.001), l’impulsività (r=.44, p<.001) e con il punteggio totale del SOGS (r=.33, p<.01). I giocatori d’azzardo patologici con punteggi più elevati al SOGS hanno valori più elevati di impulsività, alessitimia, e dissociazione. Discussione: i risultati del presente studio confermano l’ipotesi della presenza maggiori livelli di impulsività, alessi-timia e dissociazione nei giocatori d’azzardo patologici rispetto al gruppo di controllo \n \nObjectives: given that impulsivity, alexithymia and dissociation, appears central to the dynamics of gambling behavior, the present study examined the role of these features in pathological gambling (PG). This study analyzed these features comparing two different groups of participants.Methods: a total of 100 participants (94 men, 6 women) were divided into two groups: 1) a non clinical sample composed of 50 subjects, and 2) a clinical sample composed of 50 pathological gamblers. We used the following measures: 1) South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS); 2) Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11); 3) Twenty-Items Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); 4) Dissocia-tive Experience Scale Revised (DES-II). Results. Results showed that the clinical group obtained higher values than the non-clinical group for all the scales and subscales. Correlational analysis indicated that alexithymia is positively correlated with dissociation (r=.46, p<.001), impulsivity (r=.44, p<.001) and with the SOGS total score (r=.33, p<.01). Pathological gamblers with higher scores of SOGS also have higher values of impulsivity, alexithymia, and dissociation. Discussion: results of the present investigation confirm the hypothesis of the presence of higher levels of impulsivity, alexithymia and dissociation in pathological gamblers than in the control group
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".