MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116570531 · doi:10.2337/diacare.27.7.1654

Disturbed Eating Behavior and Eating Disorders in Preteen and Early Teenage Girls With Type 1 Diabetes

2004· article· en· W2116570531 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Colton, Marion P. Olmsted, Denis Daneman, Anne Rydall, Gary Rodin

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEating disordersType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusBinge eatingPopulationDisordered eatingBinge-eating disorderPsychiatryBulimia nervosaEndocrinologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of eating disturbances in preteen and early teenage girls with type 1 diabetes to their nondiabetic peers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, case-controlled study of 101 girls with type 1 diabetes, ages 9-14 years, and 303 age-matched, female nondiabetic control subjects was conducted. Participants completed a Children's Eating Disorder Examination interview. Socioeconomic status, BMI, and diabetes-related variables were assessed. Groups were compared using chi(2) analyses. RESULTS: Binge eating; the use of intense, excessive exercise for weight control; the combination of two disturbed eating-related behaviors; and subthreshold eating disorders were all more common in girls with type 1 diabetes. Metabolic control was not related to eating behavior in this study population. CONCLUSIONS: Eating disturbances, though mostly mild, were significantly more common in preteen and early teenage girls with type 1 diabetes. Screening and prevention programs for this high-risk group should begin in the preteen years.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations214
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207