Associations between emotion reactivity and eating disorder symptoms in a transdiagnostic <scp>treatment‐seeking</scp> sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with eating disorders (EDs) demonstrate difficulties with emotion regulation, and these difficulties have been associated with severity and maintenance of ED symptoms. Although emotion reactivity (i.e., the strength and duration of emotional experiences) is distinct from emotion regulation, few studies have examined emotion reactivity in the context of EDs. The purpose of the current study was to examine longitudinal associations between emotion reactivity and ED symptoms and impairment in individuals with EDs. METHOD: Individuals seeking outpatient ED treatment (N = 265) completed questionnaires assessing ED symptoms and severity, emotion reactivity, and emotion regulation difficulties at treatment intake and bi-monthly during treatment. RESULTS: Individuals with anorexia nervosa or binge eating or purging presentations had higher emotion reactivity scores than a non-ED comparison group. Controlling for age, diagnosis, and emotion regulation difficulties, emotion reactivity was positively associated with ED severity, ED-related impairment, and loss of control eating severity. Moreover, emotion reactivity, but not emotion regulation difficulties, was associated with change in ED symptoms during treatment. DISCUSSION: Findings support that emotion reactivity may differ based on ED presentations and may be an important correlate of ED symptom severity. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Emotion reactivity refers to the strength and duration of an emotional experience. This study found that higher emotion reactivity was related to greater eating disorder symptom severity and eating disorder-related impairment. It may be beneficial to consider the role of emotion reactivity in conceptualizations of eating disorders, particularly those characterized by binge eating or purging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".