Child maltreatment and eating disorders among men and women in adulthood: Results from a nationally representative United States sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Child maltreatment is associated with an increased likelihood of having mood disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, and personality disorders, but far less is known about eating disorders. The objective of the current study was to examine the associations between child maltreatment, including harsh physical punishment, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, and exposure to intimate partner violence, and eating disorders in adulthood among men and women. METHOD: Data were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions wave 3 (NESARC-III) collected in 2012-2013. The sample was nationally representative of the United States adult population (N = 36,309). Lifetime eating disorders (anorexia nervosa [AN], bulimia nervosa [BN], and binge-eating disorder [BED]) were assessed using diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) criteria and the alcohol use disorder and associated disabilities interview schedule-5 (AUDADIS-5). RESULTS: The prevalence of any lifetime eating disorder was 1.7% (0.8% among men and 2.7% among women). All child maltreatment types were associated with AN, BN, and BED with notable differences among men and women. Overall, the types of child maltreatment with the strongest relationships with any eating disorder were sexual abuse and physical neglect among men and sexual abuse and emotional abuse among women. DISCUSSION: Clinicians should be mindful that child maltreatment experiences are associated with increased odds of eating disorders including AN, BED, and BN. Such relationships are significant among men and women although notable gender differences in these relationships exist. Abstract word count = 248.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".