MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W270857072 · doi:10.1177/070674370705200401

Eating Disorder Paradigms for the New Millennium: Do “Attachment” and “Culture” Appear on Brain and Genome Scans?

2007· editorial· en· W270857072 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Howard Steiger

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueEating Disorders and Behaviors
Établissements canadiensDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas College
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyNeuroimagingDevelopmental psychologyNeurosciencePsychiatryClinical psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Arguably, eating disorders have inspired more shifts in explanatory paradigms, over a shorter span of time, than have any other class of syndromes in the history of psychiatry. We once understood anorexia nervosa (AN) to be a response to well-meaning but overbearing intrusions of anxious parents (usually mothers) that drove affected children into a compensatory stance of food refusal-presumably, the sole means of self-assertion left to these unfortunate children. This construal was tempting, partly because the parents of children with AN all seemed to be so anxious and partly because daughters with AN all seemed to be so obstinate and oppositional. However, careful attention to family interaction and attachment patterns showed that the parents in question were often anxious for no other reason than that watching one's child starve herself provokes anxiety. These anxious parents often enough failed to accommodate their daughters' simultaneous calls for protection, validation, and autonomy.' Likewise, we understood bulimia nervosa (BN) to be a misguided protest against parental dysempathy, hostility, and indeed sometimes, cruelty-a desperate grappling on the part of developmentally damaged children to gratify need through unbridled bingeing and then reject what was obtained through purging.2 These metaphors had emotional appeal but did not have sufficiently universal application. There followed the era of defining eating disorders as culture-bound syndromes or social epidemics.3 Clearly, cultural messages about the importance of dieting and slimness have a lot to do with eating disorders. However, emerging cross-cultural and historical data began to reveal a startling truth: eating disorders, especially AN, have occurred throughout the history of civilized societies, and indeed, in societies not even brushed by pressures to be thin. AN, at least, began to look less like a socioculturel creation and more like a hereditary syndrome akin to such entities as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.4 Indicating a swing to yet another etiologic concept, prototypic opening phrases in articles from the late 1990s often read something like the following: Once thought to embody a cultural preoccupation with dieting, AN and BN have come to be increasingly defined as neuropsychiatrie disorders with strong genetic determinants. This shift in perspective has reflected some central additions during the past 10 to 15 years to the knowledge base on eating disorders. Family epidemiologic and twin data have shown that the eating disorders are heritable, whereas neurobiological, genetic association, and linkage studies have provided clues as to what factors might transmit vulnerability.5-7 Important changes in weightings assigned to psychological-developmental and neurobiological-genetic factors have clearly been in order. Another competition among concepts has also unfolded as an undercurrent, relating to the question of whether to view the eating disorders as disturbances of self-, mood, and impulse regulation or as disturbances of mechanisms governing appetite and weight control. In other words, are eating disorders feeding disorders, or are they variants of anxiety, mood, and impulse control disorders? Proponents of the first view search for causes among agents known to influence eating behaviour directly (such as leptin, ghrelin, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor) and among neurotransmitters that regulate satiety and reward from food (such as serotonin and dopamine).8 Advocates of the second perspective emphasize the ways in which the eating disorders resemble mood, anxiety, and impulse control disorders and construe eating symptoms as secondary or epiphenomenological aspects of phobic food avoidance. The problem is that exponents of the feeding disorder model sputter when asked to explain why eating disorders coincide so frequently with other psychiatric problems (such as affective or personality disorders), whereas adherents of the second camp never give a satisfying answer a deceptively simple question: Why is it an eating disorder? …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,032

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,013
Communication savante0,0070,019
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,304
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Même sujetEating Disorders and Behaviors→Travaux en français237 207→