Comparisons of Men With Full or Partial Eating Disorders, Men Without Eating Disorders, and Women With Eating Disorders in the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors compared 62 men who met all or most of the DSM-III-R criteria for eating disorders with 212 women who had similar eating disorders and 3,769 men who had no eating disorders on a wide variety of clinical and historical variables. METHOD: The groups of subjects were derived from a community epidemiologic survey performed in the province of Ontario that used the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview. RESULTS: Men with eating disorders were very similar to women with eating disorders on most variables. Men with eating disorders showed higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity and more psychosocial morbidity than men without eating disorders. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the clinical similarities between men with eating disorders and women with eating disorders. They also reveal that both groups suffer similar psychosocial morbidity. Men with eating disorders show a wide range of differences from men without eating disorders; the extent to which these differences are effects of the illness or possible risk factors for the occurrence of these illnesses in men is not clear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".