An Evaluation of the Transdiagnostic Cognitive‐behavioural Model of Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the relationships between additional maintaining factors and core eating disorder maintaining mechanisms outlined in the cognitive-behavioural model of eating disorders are transdiagnostic. METHOD: Patients (n = 1451) diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa (BN) or eating disorder not otherwise specified completed the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire, Eating Disorder Inventory-2 and Personality Assessment Inventory prior to entering treatment. RESULTS: Multi-group structural equation modelling results suggested that low self-esteem, overevaluation of weight and shape, and mood intolerance processes were transdiagnostic. However, some differences between diagnostic groups were observed. Dietary restraint was only positively associated with binge eating in BN, interpersonal difficulties were only associated with dietary restraint in eating disorder not otherwise specified and perfectionism was not associated with core eating disorder maintaining mechanisms in BN. DISCUSSION: A mixture of transdiagnostic and disorder-specific processes was implicated in the maintenance of eating disorders, although longitudinal research is needed to validate results.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".