Personality and eating behaviors: A case–control study of binge eating disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Questions have been raised about the validity of binge eating disorder (BED) as psycho-pathologically distinct from other forms of overeating. Our purpose was to ascertain whether BED individuals differed in important ways from nonbinging obese adults. METHOD: BED adults were recruited from the community as were weight-matched (obese) and normal-weight control (NWC) groups. All groups were equivalent for age and gender distribution, and were assessed on several personality traits and eating behaviors. RESULTS: BED individuals and obese controls did not differ on the personality traits. Both were more reward sensitive, and had greater anxiousness, impulsivity, and addictive personality traits than NWC. However, BED individuals reported significantly greater hedonic eating compared with the obese, who had higher levels than NWC. CONCLUSION: Our findings provided no evidence of a psychological identity unique to obese adults with BED although their eating behaviors are markedly hedonically driven-i.e., more responsive to factors external to physiological needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".