Are Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa separate disorders? Challenging the ‘transdiagnostic’ theory of eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN) are classified as separate and distinct clinical disorders. Recently, there has been support for a transdiagnostic theory of eating disorders, which would reclassify them as one disorder. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether AN and BN are a single disorder with one cause or separate disorders with different causes. METHOD: Hill's Criteria of Causation were used to test the hypothesis that AN and BN are one disorder with a single cause. Hill's Criteria of Causation demand that the minimal conditions are needed to establish a causal relationship between two items which include all of the following: strength of association, consistency, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence and analogy. RESULTS: The hypothesis that AN and BN have a single cause did not meet all of Hill's Criteria of Causation. Strength of association, plausibility, analogy and some experimental evidence were met, but not consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, coherence and most experimental evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis that AN and BN are a single disorder with a common cause is not supported by Hill's Criteria of Causation. This argues against the notion of a transdiagnostic theory of eating disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".