Perfectionism in anorexia nervosa: A 6–24‐month follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the relationship between perfectionism and outcome in anorexia nervosa (AN). METHOD: Seventy-three patients received inpatient treatment for AN. Participants completed the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) at admission to (n = 55), at discharge (n = 27), and at a median of 15.9 months (n = 49) after inpatient treatment. At follow-up, participants also completed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) and their scores were compared with those of healthy controls. RESULTS: EDI Perfectionism was associated with illness status. A lower EDI Perfectionism score at admission was associated with a better response to treatment, which was subsequently associated with better outcome at follow-up. Both the good and poor outcome groups had significantly higher MPS total perfectionism scores than healthy controls. DISCUSSION: The EDI measures an aspect of perfectionism that is sensitive to illness status, whereas the MPS is less dependent on clinical state and may reflect a common personality trait that persists with remission of disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".