Bibliographic record
Abstract
This narrative review provides an overview of the epidemiology of binge eating disorder (BED), highlighting the medical history of this disorder and its entry as an independent condition in the Feeding and Eating Disorders section of the recently published Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Estimates of prevalence are provided, as well as recognition that the female to male ratio is lower in BED than in other eating disorders. Evidence is also provided of the most common comorbidities of BED, including mood and anxiety disorders and a range of addiction disorders. In addition, discussion of the viewpoint that BED itself may be an addiction - at least in severe cases - is presented. Although the genetic study of BED is still in its infancy, current research is reviewed with a focus on certain neurotransmitter genes that regulate brain reward mechanisms. To date, a focal point of this research has been on the dopamine and the μ-opioid receptor genes. Preliminary evidence suggests that a predisposing risk factor for BED may be a heightened sensitivity to reward, which could manifest as a strong dopamine signal in the brain's striatal region. Caution is encouraged, however, in the interpretation of current findings, since samples are relatively small in much of the research. To date, no genome-wide association studies have focused exclusively on BED.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".