Do eating disorders and chronic facial pain coexist? A preliminary study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although eating disorders and chronic facial pain have been documented for many years, no studies have investigated the coexistence of these disorders. Both conditions are chronic, possess an underlying psychologic component to their origin and are associated with other psychiatric comorbidites. The objective of this descriptive study was to determine the prevalence of chronic facial pain in a population of patients with eating disorders. In addition, eating disorder symptoms were investigated in a patient population with chronic facial pain. METHODS: The study group was composed of 110 patients from 2 eating disorder programs and 78 patients from a chronic facial pain treatment centre participated in the study. All patients received 2 standarized questionnaires, the Eating Attitudes Test 26 (EAT-26) and the Hapak questionnaire, to determine the presence of symptoms associated with an eating disorder or a temporomandibular disorder, respectively. RESULTS: Using a digital analog scale, 60.9% of those in the eating disorder population reported some form of facial pain currently or in the recent past. Only 2 patients in the chronic facial pain population scored above the threshold for significant eating disorder symptoms. DISCUSSION: This pilot study describes the coexistence of chronic pain in an eating disorder population. The presence of chronic pain may interefere in the treatment provided to patients with 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".