Genetic analysis of bulimia nervosa: Methods and sample description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Twin and family studies suggest that genetic variants contribute to the pathogenesis of bulimia nervosa (BN) and anorexia nervosa (AN). The Price Foundation has supported an international, multisite study of families with these disorders to identify these genetic variations. The current study presents the clinical characteristics of this sample as well as a description of the study methodology. METHOD: All probands met modified criteria for BN or bulimia nervosa with a history of AN (BAN) as defined in the 4th ed. of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). All affected relatives met DSM-IV criteria for BN, AN, BAN, or eating disorders not otherwise specified (EDNOS). Probands and affected relatives were assessed diagnostically using both trained-rater and self-report assessments. DNA samples were collected from probands, affected relatives, and available biologic parents. RESULTS: Assessments were obtained from 163 BN probands and 165 BAN probands. Overall, there were 365 relative pairs available for linkage analysis. Of the affected relatives of BN probands, 62 were diagnosed as BN (34.8%), 49 as BAN (27.5%), 35 as AN (19.7%), and 32 as EDNOS (18.0%). For the relatives of BAN probands, 42 were diagnosed as BN (22.5%), 67 as BAN (35.8%), 48 as AN (25.7%), and 30 as EDNOS (16.0%). DISCUSSION: This study represents the largest genetic study of eating disorders to date. Clinical data indicate that although there are a large number of individuals with BN disorders, a range of eating pathology is represented in the sample, allowing for the examination of several different phenotypes in molecular genetic analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".