Change in attachment states of mind of women with binge‐eating disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insecure and unresolved/disorganized attachment states of mind may impact affect regulation and interpersonal functioning that contribute to binge eating in women with binge-eating disorder (BED). Group psychological treatment may facilitate changes from insecure to secure and from unresolved-disorganized to non-unresolved/disorganized attachment states of mind. This study used attachment theory to understand better the psychopathology of BED and co-morbid overweight status and to understand better the treatment response of patients with BED who receive group psychotherapy. Women with BED attended group psychodynamic interpersonal psychotherapy and completed the Adult Attachment Interview pretreatment and 6 months posttreatment. Matched samples of overweight women without BED and normal-weight women without BED completed the Adult Attachment Interview at 1 time point. Women with BED had significantly higher rates of preoccupied and unresolved/disorganized attachment states of mind compared to normal-weight women without BED and had similar rates of insecure and unresolved/disorganized attachment states of mind compared to overweight women without BED. Of the women with BED who had an insecure and/or unresolved/disorganized attachment states of mind at pretreatment, about 60% demonstrated clinically relevant changes to secure and to non-unresolved/disorganized states of mind at 6 months post group psychodynamic interpersonal psychotherapy. Results indicated that some women with BED may benefit from interventions that help them regulate hyperactivated affect and create coherent narratives. Both women with BED and overweight women without BED may benefit from treatments that help them develop more adaptive affect regulation strategies related to unresolved/disorganized attachment states of mind.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".