Does the Interpersonal Model Generalize to Obesity Without Binge Eating?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interpersonal model has been validated for binge eating disorder (BED), but it is not yet known if the model applies to individuals who are obese but who do not binge eat. The goal of this study was to compare the validity of the interpersonal model in those with BED versus those with obesity, and normal weight samples. Data from a sample of 93 treatment-seeking women diagnosed with BED, 186 women who were obese without BED, and 100 controls who were normal weight were examined for indirect effects of interpersonal problems on binge eating psychopathology mediated through negative affect. Findings demonstrated the mediating role of negative affect for those with BED and those who were obese without BED. Testing a reverse model suggested that the interpersonal model is specific for BED but that this model may not be specific for those without BED. This is the first study to find support for the interpersonal model in a sample of women with obesity but who do not binge. However, negative affect likely plays a more complex role in determining overeating in those with obesity but who do not binge. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".