Orthorexia nervosa and obsessive-compulsive behavior among college students in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Orthorexia nervosa (ON) is a disordered eating pattern and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety condition. Although ON shares many similarities with OCD, their relationship remains unclear. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of both ON behaviors and OCD behaviors and whether or not an association between ON behaviors and OCD behaviors exist among college/university students in the United States.Methods: Using a cross-sectional, descriptive research design, a convenience sample of 270 college undergraduate students provided data using self-administered questionnaires: ORTO-15 to detect orthorexia behaviors and Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI-R) to detect obsessive-compulsive behaviors. Additionally, the participants completed a demographic questionnaire designed by the authors. Chi square, Pearson’s correlation coefficient and analysis of variance evaluated the variables of interest using a significance level of .05.Results: The prevalence rate for orthorexia nervosa behaviors was 37% and for obsessive-compulsive behaviors was 38.5%. There was a strong negative correlation (p < .001) between the scores of the ORTO-15 and the scores of the OCI-R. As orthorexia behaviors increased, obsessive-compulsive behaviors like-wise increased.Conclusions: It was concluded that college/university students are a high-risk group for orthorexia nervosa and obsessive-compulsive behaviors. Mental health professionals who encounter clients with orthorexic tendencies are encouraged to also screen for obsessive compulsive symptomology as a comorbid problem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".