Obsessions and compulsions in anorexia nervosa subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Obsession and compulsions in anorexia nervosa (AN) patients are often confused with the preoccupations and rituals that are characteristic of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). We examined the type and frequency of characteristic OCD obsessions and compulsions in a large sample of AN patients. METHOD: In personal interviews with 324 AN patients, we assessed lifetime histories of eating disorder symptomatology and obsessive-compulsive behaviors with valid semistructured interviews. Checklist category sums on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale were compared between AN and OCD subjects using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Lifetime obsessions and compulsions occurred in 68% of the AN restricting type and in 79.1% of the AN binge/purge type. The AN subgroups did not differ from OCD controls in frequency of obsessions in the symmetry and somatic categories or in the compulsion categories of ordering and hoarding. In all other categories, the AN subgroups had a significantly lower frequency compared with the OCD controls. DISCUSSION: Some common phenotype characteristics shared by most AN and OCD patients suggest these disorders may share common brain behavioral pathways. However, the lack of complete overlap indicates they most likely have different loci of pathology within those pathways.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".