Gender differences in symptom presentation and treatment outcome in children and youths with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To address the gaps in the literature examining eating disorders among males and gender minority youths, a prospective study was designed to assess gender differences in eating disorder symptom presentation and outcomes. Muscularity concerns may be particularly relevant for male youths with eating disorders, and were included in assessment of eating disorder symptom presentation. METHODS: All cisgender male youths who presented for specialized eating disorder treatment at one of two sites were invited to participate, along with a group of matched cisgender females, and all youths who did not identify with the sex assigned to them at birth. Youths completed measures of eating disorder symptoms, including muscularity concerns, and other psychiatric symptoms at baseline and end of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 27 males, 28 females and 6 trans youths took part in the study. At baseline, Kruskal-Wallis tests demonstrated that trans youths reported higher scores than cisgender male and female youths on measures of eating pathology (Eating disorder examination-questionnaire (EDE-Q) and the body fat subscale of the male body attitudes scale (MBAS)). These analyses demonstrated that there were no differences between cisgender male and female youths on eating disorder symptoms at baseline. However, repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated that males had greater decreases in eating pathology at discharge than did females, based on self-reported scores on the EDE-Q, MBAS, and Body Change Inventory. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences in eating pathology appeared at baseline, with trans youths reporting higher levels of eating pathology than cisgender youths, though no differences between cisgender males and females emerged at baseline for eating disorder symptom presentation. Contrary to expectations, there were no gender differences in measures of muscularity concerns. Males demonstrated greater eating disorder symptom improvements than females, suggesting that male adolescents may have better treatment outcomes than females in some domains.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".