MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091409226 · doi:10.1002/eat.20692

Bulimia nervosa symptoms in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD

2009· article· en· W2091409226 on OpenAlexaff
Amori Yee Mikami, Stephen P. Hinshaw, L. Eugene Arnold, Betsy Hoza, Lily Hechtman, Jeffrey H. Newcorn, Howard Abikoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulsivityBulimia nervosaPsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderPsychiatryEating disordersNormativeClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We investigated body image dissatisfaction and bingeing/purging characteristics of bulimia nervosa (BN) in the ongoing prospective follow-up of the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Participants were 337 boys and 95 girls with ADHD and 211 boys and 53 girls forming a local normative comparison group (LNCG), reassessed in midadolescence (mean age, 16.4), 8 years after original recruitment. RESULTS: Youth with childhood ADHD showed more BN symptoms in midadolescence than did LNCG youth, and girls demonstrated more BN symptoms than did boys, with effect sizes between small and medium. Childhood impulsivity, as opposed to hyperactivity or inattention, best predicted adolescent BN symptoms, particularly for girls. Among youth with ADHD, treatment received during the follow-up period was not associated with BN pathology. DISCUSSION: Both boys and girls with ADHD may be at risk for BN symptoms in adolescence because of the impulsivity central to both 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.312 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations62
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207