MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037850111 · doi:10.1097/yco.0000000000000632

Applying epigenetic science to the understanding of eating disorders: a promising paradigm for research and practice

2020· review· en· W3037850111 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda Booij, Howard Steiger

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEating disordersAnorexia nervosaEpigeneticsPsychological interventionPsychologyBulimia nervosaClinical psychologyPsychiatryBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Studies indicate that environmental factors, acting at various moments throughout the life cycle, can result in epigenetically mediated alterations in gene expression. In this article, we review recent findings on the role of epigenetic factors in eating disorders, address methodological issues that need to be considered when interpreting research findings, and comment on possible clinical applications. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence suggests that eating disorders implicate alterations of methylation in genes involved in the mental status, metabolism, anthropometric features and immunity. Furthermore, some research in individuals with anorexia nervosa suggests the presence of reversible, malnutrition-induced epigenetic alterations that 'reset' as patients recover. SUMMARY: Epigenetic studies in the eating disorders corroborate the idea that eating disorder cause is multifactorial, and identify markers that could help inform our understanding of illness staging and subtyping that may explain the commonly progressive course of these disorders, and that may provide insights towards the development of novel interventions. Already, there is evidence to suggest that, in people with eating disorders, epigenetically informed interventions help reduce stigma and shame, and increase self-acceptance and hopes of recovery. Although findings are intriguing, further research is required as, to date, studies apply modest sample sizes and disparate methodologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.419
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207