Eating disorders in adolescent boys and young men: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the recent literature on eating disorders and disordered eating behaviors among adolescent boys and young men, including epidemiology, assessment, medical complications, treatment outcomes, and special populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Body image concerns in men may involve muscularity, and muscle-enhancing goals and behaviors are common among adolescent boys and young men. Recent measures, such as the Muscularity Oriented Eating Test (MOET) have been developed and validated to assess for muscularity-oriented disordered eating. Medical complications of eating disorders can affect all organ systems in male populations. Eating disorders treatment guidance may lack specificity to boys and men, leading to worse treatment outcomes in these population. Male populations that may have elevated risk of eating disorders and disordered eating behaviors include athletes and racial/ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities. SUMMARY: Eating disorders and disordered eating behaviors in boys and men may present differently than in girls and women, particularly with muscularity-oriented disordered eating. Treatment of eating disorders in boys and men may be adapted to address their unique concerns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".