One size does not fit all. Genomics differentiates among anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge‐eating disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genomic regions associated with anorexia nervosa. No genome-wide studies of other eating disorders, such as bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder, have been performed, despite their substantial heritability. Exploratively, we aimed to identify traits that are genetically associated with binge-type eating disorders. METHOD: We calculated genome-wide polygenic scores for 269 trait and disease outcomes using PRSice v2.2 and their association with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge-eating disorder in up to 640 cases and 17,050 controls from the UK Biobank. Significant associations were tested for replication in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (up to 217 cases and 3,018 controls). RESULTS: Individuals with binge-type eating disorders had higher polygenic scores than controls for other psychiatric disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and higher polygenic scores for body mass index. DISCUSSION: Our findings replicate some of the known comorbidities of eating disorders on a genomic level and motivate a deeper investigation of shared and unique genomic factors across the three primary eating disorders.
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 | 0.009 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.005 |
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".