Low oxytocin levels are broadly associated with more pronounced psychopathology in anorexia nervosa with primarily restricting but not binge/purge eating behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is commonly associated with depression, anxiety, and deficits in socioemotional functioning. Basal levels of oxytocin, a neurohormone with antidepressant, anxiolytic, and prosocial properties, are low in women with AN. However, the relationship between oxytocin and psychopathology of AN/atypical AN has not been examined in individuals with primarily food restriction (AN/AtypAN-R) or those with restriction plus binge/purge behaviors (AN/AtypAN-BP) alone, which is important to further elucidate the neurobiology of different AN presentations. We investigated whether oxytocin levels are related to eating, affective, and socioemotional psychopathology in women with AN/AtypAN-R and separately AN/AtypAN-BP. Methods: In a cross-sectional study of 53 women with low-weight AN or atypical AN based on DSM-5 (AN/AtypAN-R: n=21, AN/AtypAN-BP: n=32), we obtained fasting serum oxytocin levels and self-report measures of psychopathology, including the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q), Beck Depression Inventory-IA (BDI), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Results: In individuals with AN/AtypAN-R, oxytocin levels were negatively associated with eating psychopathology (EDE-Q Global Score: r=-0.49, p=0.024), depressive and anxiety symptoms (BDI Total Score: r=-0.55, p=0.009; STAI Trait Score: r=-0.63, p=0.002), and socioemotional symptoms (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings Score: r=-0.49, p=0.023). In contrast, in those with AN/AtypAN-BP oxytocin levels were negatively associated with depressive symptoms only (BDI Total Score: r=-0.52, p=0.049). Conclusions: These findings support the notion that AN/AtypAN-R and AN/AtypAN-BP might have divergent underlying neurobiology. Understanding these differences is crucial to develop targeted treatments for a population with high levels of chronicity, for which no specific pharmacological treatments are currently available. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01121211.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".