MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102622488 · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.9.1455

A Comparison of Black and White Women With Binge Eating Disorder

2001· article· en· W2102622488 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen M. Pike, Faith‐Anne Dohm, Ruth H. Striegel‐Moore, Denise E. Wilfley, Christopher G. Fairburn

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsBinge eatingBinge-eating disorderWhite (mutation)PsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyEating disordersBulimia nervosa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Binge eating disorder was introduced in DSM-IV as a psychiatric disorder needing further study. This community-based study describes the relationship between race and clinical functioning in black and white women with and without binge eating disorder. METHOD: A group of 150 women with binge eating disorder (52 black, 98 white) and a race-matched group of 150 healthy comparison subjects were recruited from the community. Eating and psychiatric symptoms were assessed through interviews and self-report. RESULTS: Black and white women with binge eating disorder differed significantly on numerous eating disorder features, including binge frequency, restraint, history of other eating disorders, treatment-seeking behavior, and concerns with eating, weight, and shape. Black and white healthy comparison subjects differed significantly in obesity rates. CONCLUSIONS: For both black and white women, binge eating disorder was associated with significant impairment in clinical functioning. Yet, racial differences in clinical presentation underscore the importance of considering race in psychopathology research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations177
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychiatrySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207