Disordered eating behaviors in Mexican patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to compare the distribution of disordered eating behaviors (DEB) in Mexican adult patients, with and without type 2 diabetes. A cross-sectional descriptive and comparative field research was carried out in a sample of 169 subjects (54% females; 46% males) with a mean age of 47.9 years. The sample was matched in two groups: patients with type 2 diabetes and patients without diabetes. DEB were assessed with a valid Mexican scale named EFRATA (Escala de Factores de Riesgo Asociados a Trastornos Alimentarios). Results confirmed significant differences in food and weight concern (t = 4.15, df 152.09, p = 0.000), normal eating behavior (t = 4.03, df 151.45, p = 0.000) and emotional eating (t = 1.93, df 160.76, p < 0.05), EFRATA's factors in which diabetic subjects obtained higher values in comparison with no diabetic patients. Subjects without diabetes achieved higher value only in binge eating behavior with statistically significant difference (t = 2.11, df 128.8, p < 0.05) in contrast with diabetic patients. Since these findings have been open the possibility to propose specific strategies that encourage healthy eating behaviors, both in adult patients with and without diabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".