A further assessment of decision-making in anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anorexia nervosa (AN) may be associated with impaired decision-making. Cognitive processes underlying this impairment remain unclear, mainly because previous assessments of this complex cognitive function were completed with a single test. Furthermore, clinical features such as mood status may impact this association. We aim to further explore the hypothesis of altered decision-making in AN. METHOD: Sixty-three adult women with AN and 49 female controls completed a clinical assessment and were assessed by three tasks related to decision-making [Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task (PRLT)]. RESULTS: People with AN had poorer performance on the IGT and made less risky choices on the BART, whereas performances were not different on PRLT. Notably, AN patients with a current major depressive disorder showed similar performance to those with no current major depressive disorder. CONCLUSION: These results tend to confirm an impaired decision making-process in people with AN and suggest that various cognitive processes such as inhibition to risk-taking or intolerance of uncertainty may underlie this condition Furthermore, these impairments seem unrelated to the potential co-occurent major depressive disorders.
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) | 0.002 | 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".