Neurocognitive Endophenotypes for Eating Disorders: A Preliminary High-Risk Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating disorders (EDs) are psychiatric disorders with a neurobiological basis. ED-specific neuropsychological and brain characteristics have been identified, but often in individuals in the acute phase or recovered from EDs, precluding an understanding of whether they are correlates and scars of EDs vs. predisposing factors. Although familial high-risk (FHR) studies are available across other disorders, this study design has not been used in EDs. We carried out the first FMH study in EDs, investigating healthy offspring of women with EDs and controls. We preliminarily aimed to investigate ED-related neurocognitive and brain markers that could point to predisposing factors for ED. Sixteen girls at FHR for EDs and twenty control girls (age range: 8−15), completed neuropsychological tests assessing executive functions. Girls also underwent a resting-state fMRI scan to quantify functional connectivity (FC) within resting-state networks. Girls at FHR for EDs performed worse on a cognitive flexibility task compared with controls (F = 5.53, p = 0.02). Moreover, they showed different FC compared with controls in several resting-state networks (p < 0.05 FDR-corrected). Differences identified in cognitive flexibility and in FC are in line with those identified in individuals with EDs, strongly pointing to a role as potential endophenotypes of EDs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".