Differences in the Nature of Body Image Disturbances Between Female Obese Individuals With Versus Without a Comorbid Binge Eating Disorder: An Exploratory Study Including Static and Dynamic Aspects of Body Image
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various components of body image were measured to assess body image disturbances in patients with obesity. To overcome limitations of previous studies, a photo distortion technique and a biological motion distortion device were included to assess static and dynamic aspects of body image. Questionnaires assessed cognitive-affective aspects, bodily attitudes, and eating behavior. Patients with obesity and a binge eating disorder (OBE, n = 15) were compared with patients with obesity only (ONB; n = 15), to determine the nature of any differences in body image disturbances. Both groups had high levels of body image disturbances with cognitive-affective deficits. Binge eating disorder (BED) participants also had perceptual difficulties (static only). Both groups reported high importance of weight and shape for self-esteem. There were some significant differences between the groups suggesting that a comorbid BED causes further aggravation. Body image interventions in obesity treatment may be warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".