1338 – A Multidimensional Assessment Of Decision-making In Anorexia-nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Anorexia nervosa (AN) has been inconsistently associated with impaired decision-making. Several methodological issues may underlie these discrepancies such as comorbid conditions or the assessment of this complex cognitive function with a single test. Method Sixty-eight adult women suffering from AN and 49 female controls were included. All completed a clinical assessment and a battery of neuropsychological tests assessing specific aspect of decision-making [IGT, Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task (PRLT) and Brixton Test]. Results People with AN had poorer performance on the IGT and Brixton task, compared to controls. In addition, the AN group made less risky choices on the BART. Performances were similar on PRLT. Of importance, AN patients with a current major depressive disorder showed similar results to those with no current major depressive disorder. Conclusion These results suggest broad impaired decision making-process in people with AN characterized by inhibition in risk-taking and mismanagement of uncertainty. These impairments seem not related to mood
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".