Association of premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder with bulimia nervosa and binge‐eating disorder in a nationally representative epidemiological sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bulimia nervosa (BN) and binge-eating disorder (BED) are associated with significant health impairment. Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) comprise both psychological (disturbances in mood and affect) and physiological (bloating and changes in appetite) symptoms that may trigger binge-eating and/or purging. METHOD: Female participants were drawn from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiological Surveys, conducted from 2001 to 2003. Weighted multivariable logistic regression modeled the association between lifetime PMS and PMDD and lifetime odds of BN or BED. RESULTS: Among 8,694 participants, 133 (1.0%) had BN and 185 (1.8%) BED. Additionally, 366 (4.2%) had PMDD and 3,489 (42.4%) had PMS. Prevalence of PMDD and PMS were 17.4 and 55.4% among those with BN, 10.7 and 48.9% among those with BED and 3.4 and 59.1% among those with subthreshold BED. After adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, income, education, body mass index, age at menarche, birth control use, and comorbid mental health conditions, PMDD was associated with seven times the odds of BN (OR 7.2, 95% CI 2.3, 22.4) and PMS with two times the odds of BN (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1, 5.7). Neither PMDD nor PMS were significantly associated with BED. DISCUSSION: Women with PMS and PMDD have a higher odds of BN, independent of comorbid mental health conditions. PMS and PMDD may be important comorbidities to BN to consider in clinical settings, and future research should investigate whether PMS and PMDD affect the onset and duration of bulimic symptoms as well as the potential for shared risk factors across disorders. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.(Int J Eat Disord 2016; 49:641-650).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".