MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118027963 · doi:10.2174/157340009787315307

Body Image Disturbance and Psychopathology in Children: Research Evidence and Implications for Prevention and Treatment

2009· article· en· W2118027963 on OpenAlexaff
Line Tremblay, Marjolaine M. Limbos

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Psychiatry Reviews · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathologyEating disordersPsychologyCognitionPerceptionBody dysmorphic disorderDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body image disturbance has been listed as a diagnostic feature of several psychopathological conditions [1-5]. As body image concerns appear in children as young as 5 years old, it was hypothesized to be an important risk factor for the development of psychopathology, such as Eating Disorders (ED) in adolescence. Results of the current review of the literature support this hypothesis and suggest that young children can (1) estimate as accurately as adults their body size, and (2) show similar cognitive distortions, cognitive biases, and the negative emotions associated with their body image. There is some evidence that children can (1) display severe symptoms of body image distortion such as is present in body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), (2) demonstrate negative stereotypes toward obesity and (3) internalize thin ideal body image. Research suggests that some of the key factors involved in childrens body satisfaction is parental perception and direct comments from peers. Body dissatisfaction can predict body image related psychopathology later in development. In conclusion, intervention and prevention of eating disorders with children under the age of 7 is arguably a viable strategy, and cognitive and behavioural training could involve parents, teachers, mental health practitioners as well as the child him/herself. This training and education should cover early manifestation of body image disturbance and their associated risk factors. Keywords: Literature review, body image, children, research, treatment

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations68
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Psychiatry ReviewsSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207