Bingeing, Purging, and Suicidal Ideation in Clinical and Non-Clinical Samples of Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicidal ideation is a serious mental health concern reported by adolescents. Despite understanding of increased suicidal ideation in patients with eating disorders (EDs) and obesity, few studies have compared how disordered eating (bingeing, vomiting and over exercising) is associated with suicidal ideation in clinical and non-clinical samples of youth across the ED and weight spectrum. The present study aimed to 1) comparatively examine rates of suicidal ideation and disordered eating behaviors in clinical samples of youth with EDs, complex obesity, or from the community, and 2) examine whether disordered eating was associated with suicidal ideation above and beyond age, body mass index, diagnosis, treatment-seeking status, and depressive symptoms in large samples of males vs. females in an attempt to understand whether these behaviors should lead to concern regarding suicidal ideation. Data from charts on treatment-seeking adolescents diagnosed with either an ED (N = 315), severe complex obesity (N = 212), and from the community (N = 3036) were pooled together for comparative purposes. Results showed that suicidal ideation was higher in youth seeking treatment for an ED (50.2%) and obesity (23.7%) as compared to youth from the community (13%). Binary logistic regression analyses revealed that vomiting (OR = 1.73 for females, 8.17 for males) and over-exercising (OR = 1.47 for females, 1.68 for males) was significantly associated with suicidal ideation in both males and females. Findings underscore the importance of screening for suicidal ideation in youth who report vomiting or over-exercising despite diagnostic presentation, age, weight, or treatment setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".