Obsessive–compulsive symptoms in young women affected with anorexia nervosa, and their relationship with personality, psychopathology, and attachment style
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OC) are associated with greater morbidity and worse prognosis in anorexia nervosa (AN). We assessed the presence of non-eating OC in participants with AN and related them with their psychopathology, personality, and attachment style features. METHODS: Young women with AN (N = 41, 30 restrictor and 11 binge-purging type) were assessed on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). These participants with AN and 82 healthy controls (HC) completed the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI), Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2), Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ). The association between Y-BOCS scores and indexes of psychopathology, personality, and attachment were examined. RESULTS: AN had significantly higher scores than HC on the EDI-2, SCL-90, TAS-20, ASQ-Need for Approval, and TCI-Harm Avoidance and Self-directedness. The Y-BOCS scores were significantly correlated with ASQ-Need for Approval, TAS-20-Difficulty in Describing Feelings, SCL-90-Phobic Anxiety, and Anxiety, EDI-2-Drive to Thinness, and Asceticism. Need for Approval displayed the strongest correlation with OC symptoms. Difficulty in describing feelings displayed the strongest correlation with compulsive OC symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: OC traits in AN were primarily associated with measures of insecure attachment rather than to their eating disorder or general psychopathology. Therapeutic approaches to correcting insecure attachment may be considered as a possible approach to treating AN patients with OC. The study supports a new psychopathological perspective for understanding the meaning of OC symptoms in AN. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III: Evidence obtained from cohort or case-control analytic studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".