Over‐evaluation of thoughts about food: Differences across eating‐disorder subtypes and a preliminary examination of treatment effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective Over‐evaluation of food, shape and weight is a multi‐faceted component of cognitive‐behavioral models of eating disorders. One specific aspect of over‐evaluation of food is a cognitive distortion known as thought‐shape fusion (TSF). TSF is purported to be specific to eating pathology; however, research has not yet elucidated whether individuals across the subtypes of eating disorders are differentially susceptible to this phenomenon. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether susceptibility to TSF decreases over the course of treatment. Method TSF, eating pathology, and generalized psychopathology were assessed in 76 individuals with eating disorders. Changes in TSF from pre‐ to post‐treatment were assessed in a subset of participants ( n = 24). Results Individuals with the binge/purge subtype of anorexia nervosa were more susceptible to TSF than were individuals with bulimia nervosa or the restrictive subtype of anorexia nervosa. Increased TSF corresponded with higher levels of eating pathology, depression, and impulsivity. In addition, there were decreases in TSF over the course of treatment. Discussion The observed differences in TSF susceptibility across eating disorder subtypes suggests that subtypes may be differentially prone to over‐evaluation of thoughts about food, which represents a facet of one of the core maintenance mechanisms in cognitive‐behavioral models of eating disorders. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2014; 47:302–309)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".