Treatment Implications of Axis-II Comorbidity in Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we review the clinical research on the implications of comorbid personality disorders (PDs), pathological personality traits, and the expression and response to treatment of those with eating disorders (EDs) (i.e., anorexia and bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder). Obsessive-compulsive PDs and related traits, such as perfectionism and rigidity, appear to be clear-cut risk and maintenance factors for anorexia nervosa. In bulimia nervosa, trait impulsivity seems to be related to early termination from therapy and, according to at least some indices, poorer responses to treatment. Dramatic-Erratic PD features, generally more characteristic of binge-purge ED variants, clearly predict a protracted course for general psychiatric symptoms, but may have less prognostic value for eating symptoms. Recent guidelines from two influential bodies—the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2000 American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with eating disorders, Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]) and the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2004 National Institute for Clinical Excellence. 2004. Eating disorders: Core interventions in the treatment and management of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and related eating disorders, London, UK: British Psychological Society. [Google Scholar])—both include the concept that “trait-oriented” interventions, targeting personality-linked components like perfectionism, affective instability, impulsivity, and interpersonal disturbances, may optimize treatment effects. In general, the literature supports the recommendation that clinicians should apply well-validated, symptom-focused therapies for the EDs; in addition, clinicians may wish to incorporate trait-focused interventions in patients in whom personality pathology contributes to suboptimal response.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".