Perceived non‐shared environment, personality traits, family factors and developmental experiences in bulimia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of perceived non-shared environmental influences and personality traits in the risk of developing bulimia nervosa (BN) was compared in 40 women with BN and their non-eating disordered sisters. METHODS: The two sisters were compared for (a) eating pathology, (b) perceived non-shared environmental factors (differential family relationships, developmental teasing, traumatic experiences), (c) personality traits (impulsivity, affective instability, narcissism), and (d) psychopathology (anxiety, depression). RESULTS: Specific perceived non-shared risk factors (e.g. perceptions of teasing), nonspecific non-shared risk factors (e.g. insecure paternal attachment) and personality traits (e.g. narcissism) distinguished women with BN from sisters. In the final logistic regression, insecure paternal attachment predicted the risk for BN, while trends were apparent for narcissism and developmental teasing after controlling for psychopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Our correlational cross-sectional design does not allow for investigation of direction of effects. However, it is an important first step in identifying possible perceived non-shared environmental influences and personality traits that may constitute vulnerability factors predisposing individuals to the development of BN. Findings are discussed in the light of existing models of risk factors for the etiology of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".