First presentation of restrictive early onset eating disorders in Asian children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the spectrum of children with restrictive early onset eating disorders (EOEDs), defined as below 13 years of age, presenting to a tertiary institution in Asia and comparing them with older adolescents with eating disorders. METHODS: This is a retrospective case review of Asian children who were treated in an eating disorder center. Baseline characteristics and inpatient management at first presentation of children younger than 13 years of age (EOED) were compared to those in older adolescents. RESULTS: A total of 288 patients with restrictive eating disorders were analyzed with 53 (18%) patients having onset younger than age 13 at initial presentation. There were no significant differences in percentage weight loss and hospitalization rates between the two age groups. Patients with EOED presented with significantly shorter duration of symptoms, and lower rates of secondary amenorrhea. More patients with EOED required phosphate supplementation compared to those in older age group. CONCLUSION: Despite having a shorter duration of illness, Asian children with EOED had similar percentage weight loss and rates of admission due to malnutrition as those in older Asian adolescent patients. This study underlined the severity of EOEDs and the need for early recognition and medical assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".