Analysis of Psychological and Biological Parameters in Patients Affected by Anorexia Nervosa or Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Depression and anxiety disorders have a high comorbidity with eating disorders (EDs), especially anorexia nervosa (AN) and obesity. This concomitance may complicate the diagnosis and treatment of these disorders. Aim 1: to study psychological and biological factors having significant roles in anxiety and depression in ED patients. Aim 2: to evaluate differences in ED individuals having anorexia nervosa and obesity. Methods: ED patients (n° 20 with anorexia nervosa; n° 15 with obesity) were enrolled at the Eating Disorder Unit of ASL Napoli 2 (Campania, Italy) and ASL Salerno (Campania, Italy) between January 2019 and January 2020. From all subjects we collected sociodemographic data, body mass index (BMI) and blood samples routinely tested for insulin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT). We administered the State Trait Anxiety Inventory Scale (STAI) and Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) to assess the severity and chronicity of EDs and the presence of anxious and depressive symptoms. Results: We observed significant differences in the mean values of BMI in the groups of patients with AN (BMI = 16,28) or (BMI = 30,90) have clinical values that meet the diagnostic criteria while having normative values for Control group CRT (BMI = 22,1). Conclusions: The presence of several disorders at the same time can increase the severity and chronicity of EDs and make a favourable outcome of the treatment more problematic. Furthermore, the correlation between biological and psychological factors in our understanding of comorbidity in EDs patients may have implications for the evaluation and treatment of this population.
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".