Denial and minimization in adolescents with anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examines symptoms of denial in 86 adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN) using a dataset from a family therapy trial. METHOD: Using the Restraint subscale of the Eating Disorders Examination (EDE) at baseline, participants were divided into deniers (n = 15), minimizers (n = 21), and admitters (n = 50). These subgroups were compared with analysis of variance (ANOVA; Tukey post-hoc analysis) on a variety of assessment and treatment variables at baseline and at 12 months. RESULTS: Although body mass index (BMI) was not significantly different, all subscale scores of the EDE were lower in the deniers compared with the admitters (p = .0001 for all subscales) at baseline. Minimizers also scored lower than admitters on 3 of 4 subscales (p = .0001 for the Restraint, Weight Concern, and Shape Concern subscales of the EDE). At baseline and at 12 months, there were no significant differences on the Youth Self-Report or the Child Behavior Checklist. At 12 months, the only significant difference was in the Restraint subscale, with deniers still scoring lower than admitters (p = .015). CONCLUSION: Denial and minimization appear to be common processes occurring in adolescents with AN and present difficulties in assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".