Cognitive-Affective Status in Anorexia Nervosa: Self-image and Absence of Positive Emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationships between eating disorder patterns (Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale) and cognitive-affective (Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule) status in forty-nine patients presenting AN in an age- and education-matched comparison with thirty-four healthy controls were investigated. AN patients expressed higher levels of restraint, eating concern, shape concern, weight concern and a higher global score on the Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire. These responses were accompanied by higher scores on Emotional identifying, Emotional describing, Emotional orientation and Total scoring on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. AN patients expressed also less positive affect (PA) and more negative affect (NA) than the healthy matched controls. Linear regression analysis indicated that three factors predicted the AN condition, namely Shape concern (β = 0.689) and Weight concern (β = 0.570) whereas PA was counter-predictive (β = -0.291), whereas for the Control condition, only PA was predictive (β = 0.350). The present findings are discussed from a perspective of documented regional brain dysfunctions underlying cognitive and emotional domains that have been obtained from neuro-imaging studies of anorexia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".