MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074325192 · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-13-302

Brain responses to body image stimuli but not food are altered in women with bulimia nervosa

2013· article· en· W2074325192 on OpenAlexaff
Frédérique Van den Eynde, Vincent Giampietro, Andrew Simmons, Rudolf Uher, Chris Andrew, Philippe‐Olivier Harvey, Iain C. Campbell, Ulrike Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDalhousie University
FundersKing's College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsBulimia nervosaFunctional magnetic resonance imagingInsulaPsychologyAnxietyPsychopathologyCravingAmygdalaAudiologyAnorexia nervosaClinical psychologyEating disordersDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryNeuroscienceMedicineAddiction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research into the neural correlates of bulimia nervosa (BN) psychopathology remains limited. METHODS: In this functional magnetic resonance imaging study, 21 BN patients and 23 healthy controls (HCs) completed two paradigms: (1) processing of visual food stimuli and (2) comparing their own appearance with that of slim women. Participants also rated food craving and anxiety levels. RESULTS: Brain activation patterns in response to food cues did not differ between women with and without BN. However, when evaluating themselves against images of slim women, BN patients engaged the insula more and the fusiform gyrus less, compared to HCs, suggesting increased self-focus among women with BN whilst comparing themselves to a 'slim ideal'. In these BN patients, exposure to food and body image stimuli increased self-reported levels of anxiety, but not craving. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that women with BN differ from HCs in the way they process body image, but not in the way they process food stimuli.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.279 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207