Mentalization in developmental age’s eating disorders: Comparison between anorexia nervosa and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Anorexia Nervosa (AN) and Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) are two primary restrictive eating disorders described in DSM-5, characterized both of them by insufficient food intake. This behavior In ARFID is not driven by weight and shape concerns that tipify AN. While there are several studies that highlight the presence of mentalizing difficulties in AN, there are still no data about mentalizing profile in ARFID. Objectives The aim of this study was to better characterize the mentalizing profile of AN and ARFID children and adolescent. Methods Two groups of AN or ARFID outpatients (15+15), aged 6 to 18 years, were assessed by Alexythimia Questionnaire for Children (AQC) and Toronto Alexythimia Scale-20 (TAS-20) to evaluate alexythimia; by Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and Basic Empathy Scale (BES) to assess empathy; by NEPSY-II social perception subtests to evaluate Theory of Mind and Emotion recognition. Exclusion criteria were the presence of intellectual disability, pervasive developmental disorders and binge eating behavior (eating disorder other than AN or ARFID). Results Preliminary results showed different mentalizing profiles between ARFID and AN patients, with differences in the score for affective empathy, lower in ARFID than in AN patients while the score for alexythimia traits resulted higher in AN population. Conclusions By our results, mentalization impairment appeared trans-diagnostic across several eating disorders. This first result should be further improved to better analyze this construct in order to develop effective clinical intervention to improve the subject’s affective regulation. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".