Ghrelin and Obestatin Circadian Levels Differentiate Bingeing-Purging from Restrictive Anorexia Nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Anorexia nervosa (AN) patients present with restrictive food behavior (AN-R). Some of them develop episodes of bulimia (AN-BP) without any clear pathophysiological explanation to date. Their clinical differentiation is important but not easily performed. Orexigenic/anorexigenic peptides measurements could provide some clues for that matter. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine whether the circadian profile of total and acylated ghrelin, obestatin, and peptide YY (PYY) levels is different in AN-R subjects when compared with AN-BP patients. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: This was a cross-sectional study in an endocrinological unit. PATIENTS AND CONTROL SUBJECTS: Four groups of age-matched young women: 22 AN-R, 10 AN-BP, 16 normal-weight bulimia nervosa (BN), and nine controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twelve-point circadian profiles of plasma total and acylated ghrelin, obestatin, and PYY were measured. RESULTS: Total and acylated ghrelin and obestatin circadian levels were increased in AN-R when compared with controls but decreased in both AN-BP and BN groups (P < 0.001). PYY was decreased in all groups with eating disorders. Acylated to total ghrelin ratio was decreased in AN-BP and BN (P < 0.001), whereas obestatin to acylated ghrelin and PYY to acylated ghrelin ratios were increased in both groups with bingeing-purging behavior (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AN-associated bingeing-purging behavior present a very different profile of appetite regulatory peptides when compared with the pure restrictive type. The assessment of ghrelin (and eventually obestatin) could be of particular interest for differential diagnosis. Very low ghrelin levels and increased anorexigenic to orexigenic peptide ratios suggest either a lack of adaptation to a starvation state or a higher facility to cope with undernutrition.
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) | 0.000 | 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".