Laxative misuse and behavioral disinhibition in bulimia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Various reports suggest that purging with laxatives is associated with greater behavioral impulsivity in bulimia nervosa (BN) patients. We investigated the extent to which laxative misuse corresponds to specific impulse-control problems. METHOD: Participants included bulimic women who misuse laxatives (BNL+; n = 12), bulimic women who do not misuse laxatives (BNL-; n = 33), and healthy normal eaters (NE; n = 26). Participants completed the Go/No-Go discrimination task (a well-validated computerized measure of response disinhibition), as well as self-report questionnaires of impulsivity, eating symptoms, and general psychopathology. RESULTS: Compared with the other groups, the BNL+ group made more commission errors on the Go/No-Go under cues for punishment, indicating they were more disinhibited when faced with possible negative outcomes. Compared with the BNL- group, the BNL+ group was also more likely to differ from the NE group on self-reported impulsivity. There were no differences between the two bulimic groups on eating symptoms and the three groups did not differ in terms of general psychopathology. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that, controlling for eating symptoms and psychopathology, laxative misuse among BN patients is associated with difficulty inhibiting incorrect responses in the face of perceived threats.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".