Impulsivity in women with eating disorders: Problem of response inhibition, planning, or attention?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Impulsivity is generally believed to be more characteristic of individuals with bulimic than with restrictive eating disorders (EDs). However, studies have not exhaustively explored the association between EDs and various component dimensions of the impulsivity construct. METHOD: We conducted a multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in 84 women with bulimia nervosa (BN), 37 with anorexia nervosa (AN: 19 restricters and 18 bingers-purgers), and 61 normal-control participants. To assess multiple components of impulsivity, participants completed a battery of self-report questionnaires and a performance test. RESULTS: Compared with normal-control participants, all ED groups showed attentional problems. However, only women suffering BN or AN-binge purge subtype showed elevations on motoric forms of impulsivity, whereas women with BN were the only group to report tendencies toward reckless behavior. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that binge-eating behavior coincides with problems of response inhibition, whereas a risk-taking attitude may be a unique characteristic of individuals with BN.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".