MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035392705 · doi:10.1348/174866409x459674

Quantitative evidence for distinct cognitive impairment in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa

2009· review· en· W2035392705 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantine K. Zakzanis, Zachariah Campbell, Angelina J. Polsinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropsychology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnorexia nervosaPsychologyBulimia nervosaCognitionCognitive impairmentClinical psychologyEating disordersDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is generally agreed that at least some aspects of abnormal eating behaviour is indeed due in part to disordered cognition. The accumulated literature illustrates cognitive impairment in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN). Yet beyond being inconsistent, these independent studies also do not reveal the magnitude of impairment within and across studies and fail to give due consideration to the magnitude of impairment so as to understand the severity and breadth of impairment and/or differences in cognitive profiles between patients with AN and BN. Hence, the present review on the subject sought to articulate the magnitude of cognitive impairment in patients with AN and BN by quantitatively synthesizing the existing literature using meta-analytic methodology. The results demonstrate modest evidence of cognitive impairment specific to AN and BN that is related to body mass index in AN in terms of its severity, and is differentially impaired between disorders. Together, these results suggest that disturbed cognition is figural in the presentation of eating disorders and may serve to play an integral role in its cause and maintenance. Implications of these findings with respects to future research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuropsychologySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207