Classification of feeding and eating disorders: review of evidence and proposals for ICD‐11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current classification of eating disorders is failing to classify most clinical presentations; ignores continuities between child, adolescent and adult manifestations; and requires frequent changes of diagnosis to accommodate the natural course of these disorders. The classification is divorced from clinical practice, and investigators of clinical trials have felt compelled to introduce unsystematic modifications. Classification of feeding and eating disorders in ICD-11 requires substantial changes to remediate the shortcomings. We review evidence on the developmental and cross-cultural differences and continuities, course and distinctive features of feeding and eating disorders. We make the following recommendations: a) feeding and eating disorders should be merged into a single grouping with categories applicable across age groups; b) the category of anorexia nervosa should be broadened through dropping the requirement for amenorrhoea, extending the weight criterion to any significant underweight, and extending the cognitive criterion to include developmentally and culturally relevant presentations; c) a severity qualifier "with dangerously low body weight" should distinguish the severe cases of anorexia nervosa that carry the riskiest prognosis; d) bulimia nervosa should be extended to include subjective binge eating; e) binge eating disorder should be included as a specific category defined by subjective or objective binge eating in the absence of regular compensatory behaviour; f) combined eating disorder should classify subjects who sequentially or concurrently fulfil criteria for both anorexia and bulimia nervosa; g) avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder should classify restricted food intake in children or adults that is not accompanied by body weight and shape related psychopathology; h) a uniform minimum duration criterion of four weeks should apply.
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 | 0.041 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".