Incidence of Anorexia Nervosa in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anorexia nervosa (AN) among the general population is a rare but often fatal illness. Objective: To summarize the incidence of AN using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Four online databases (PubMed, Scopus, WoS and Embase) were consulted. The review was conducted according to with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was limited to women. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: A total of 31 articles were included in the study. The incidence rate of AN ranged from 0.5 to 318.0 cases per 100,000 women–years. The incidence in studies based on outpatient healthcare services (OHS) was higher than those based on hospital admissions (HA) (8.8 95% CI: 7.83–9.80 vs. 5.0 95% CI: 4.87–5.05). In young women, the incidence in OHS was higher than HA (63.7, 95% CI 61.21–66.12 vs. 8.1 95% CI 7.60–8.53). The linear trend in the incidence of AN was increasing in all ages of women and young women, both in studies with hospital admission records, and in those based on outpatient healthcare services. Conclusion: The incidence of AN depends on the methodology, the type of population and the diagnostic criteria used.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".