Associations between dimensions of anorexia nervosa and obsessive–compulsive disorder: An examination of personality and psychological factors in patients with anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anorexia nervosa (AN) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are highly comorbid. However, the factors that account for this comorbidity are poorly understood. We examined the core dimensions of AN and OCD and psychological and personality factors shared by both disorders. METHOD: In path analyses (N = 732 women with either current AN or recovered from AN), we examined which factors were uniquely and independently associated with the core dimensions of AN and OCD. We also examined recovery from AN as a moderator. RESULTS: When individuals with AN reported greater concern over mistakes, they endorsed more severity in both AN and OCD core dimensions. These unique associations existed above and beyond all other transdiagnostic personality and psychological factors and regardless of AN recovery status. CONCLUSIONS: Concern over mistakes partially accounts for severity in the core dimensions of both AN and OCD. Concern over mistakes may represent an important target in the aetiology of AN and OCD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".