MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315490799 · doi:10.1186/s40337-022-00685-9

Medical and physiological complications of exercise for individuals with an eating disorder: A narrative review

2023· review· en· W4315490799 on OpenAlexaff
Danika A. Quesnel, Marita Cooper, María Fernández-del-Valle, Alanah Reilly, Rachel M. Calogero

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eating Disorders · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeNarrative reviewEating disordersPsychologyMedicineGerontologyPsychotherapistPhysical therapyPsychiatryArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with eating disorders (ED) experience prolonged malnutrition, binge episodes, and compensatory behaviours that affect every organ system. Psychological and physiological symptoms are worsened with comorbid dysfunctional exercise, seen in up to 80% of those with an ED. Although return to exercise is an important component of treatment and recovery, little is known about the contraindications and risks of exercise engagement specific to those with an ED. This paper provides a comprehensive narrative review of the medical and physiological complications of engaging in exercise during ED treatment and outlines when exercise may be contraindicated or used in modified or cautionary ways. We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsychArticles to identify relevant articles, which yielded six categories of medical and physiological complications of ED that may be exacerbated by exercise: energy availability, cardiovascular health, electrolyte abnormalities, biomedical function markers, sex hormones, and body composition. We summarize the evidence for these complications for readers and offer an initial set of recommendations for incorporating exercise during ED treatment based on our findings. This review may serve as a resource for members of ED treatment teams to help evaluate more readily and confidently whether exercise is safe for individual patients and when modifications and caution may be warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207