Psychological characteristics and childhood adversity of adolescents with atypical anorexia nervosa versus anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment and diagnosis of atypical anorexia nervosa (AAN) is an ongoing challenge for clinicians. This study aims to examine psychological morbidity and exposure to childhood adversity in adolescents with AAN compared to adolescents with anorexia nervosa, restricting type (AN-R). This registry-based study compared 42 adolescents with AAN to 79 adolescents with AN-R on a variety of psychosocial measures at the time of presentation to a specialized eating disorder program. In contrast to AN-R, adolescents with AAN had more severe drive for thinness (p =.011), body dissatisfaction (p =.038), and lower quality of life (p =.047), but had better global functioning (p =.032). Adolescents who had high Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Questionnaire scores (ACE score ≥ 4) had over 5 times higher odds of having AAN than those who did not have high ACE scores (p =.008). There was no significant difference between groups on measures of low self-esteem and non-accidental self-injury. Adolescents with AAN presented with similar or more severe psychosocial distress compared to their peers with AN-R across a majority of the measures. The findings highlight the need to address trauma, body-related difficulties, and quality of life in the assessment and treatment of adolescents with AAN.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".