Comorbid Eating Disorders in a Sample of Youth With Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There is growing recognition of the importance of comorbid eating disorders (ED) among individuals with bipolar disorder (BD). However, most studies on this topic have focused on adult samples, and little is known regarding comorbid ED among youth with BD. Methods: The sample included 197 youth with DSM-IV BD (BD-I, BD-II, or BD-NOS ), aged 13–20 years and recruited from a subspecialized clinic within a tertiary academic health sciences center from 2009 to 2017. Univariate analyses examined demographic and clinical variables among participants with versus without lifetime DSM-IV ED. Variables significant at P < .10 were entered into a backward stepwise regression. Results: Fifty-six participants (28.4%) had lifetime DSM-IV ED (3.6% anorexia nervosa, 8.1% bulimia nervosa, 16.8% ED not otherwise specified). Significant correlates of lifetime ED were female sex (P < .001), BD-II subtype (P = .03), suicidal ideation (P = .006), suicide attempts (P = .004), non-suicidal self-injury (P < .001), sexual abuse (P = .02), cigarette smoking (P = .001), anxiety disorders (P = .004), posttraumatic stress disorder (P = .004), substance use disorders (P = .006), history of individual therapy (P = .01), and family history of anxiety (P = .01). Significant correlates of no lifetime ED were BD-I subtype (P < .001) and lifetime lithium use (P = .01). The ED group had significantly more severe lifetime depression (P < .001) and significantly more self-reported affective lability (P < .001) and borderline personality traits (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, the most robust predictors of lifetime ED were female sex (odds ratio = 4.61, P = .004), BD-I subtype (OR = 0.21, P = .03), cigarette smoking (OR = 2.78, P = .02), individual therapy (OR = 3.92, P = .03), family history of anxiety (OR = 2.86, P = .02), and borderline personality traits (OR = 1.01, P = .009). Conclusions: ED are common among youth with BD and associated with adverse clinical characteristics, many of which converge with prior adult literature. Future studies evaluating specific ED subtypes are warranted, as are treatment studies targeting comorbid ED in youth with BD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".