Food Addiction in Eating Disorders and Obesity: Analysis of Clusters and Implications for Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food addiction (FA) has been associated with greater psychopathology in individuals with eating disorders (ED) and obesity (OBE). The current study aims to provide a better phenotypic characterization of the FA construct by conducting a clustering analysis of FA in both conditions (ED and OBE). The total sample was comprised of 234 participants that scored positive on the Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0. (YFAS-2) (119 bulimia nervosa (BN), 50 binge eating disorder (BED), 49 other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) and 16 OBE). All participants completed a comprehensive battery of questionnaires. Three clusters of FA participants were identified. Cluster 1 (dysfunctional) was characterized by the highest prevalence of OSFED and BN, the highest ED severity and psychopathology, and more dysfunctional personality traits. Cluster 2 (moderate) showed a high prevalence of BN and BED and moderate levels of ED psychopathology. Finally, cluster 3 (adaptive) was characterized by a high prevalence of OBE and BED, low levels of ED psychopathology, and more functional personality traits. In conclusion, this study identified three distinct clusters of ED-OBE patients with FA and provides some insight into a better phenotypic characterization of the FA construct when considering psychopathology, personality and ED pathology. Future studies should address whether these three food addiction categories are indicative of therapy outcome.
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 | 0.000 | 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".