Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disordered eating is a serious health concern globally. The etiology is complex and multidimensional and differs somewhat for each specific eating disorder. Several risk factors have been identified which include psychological, genetic, biochemical, environmental, and sociocultural factors. Poor body image, low self-esteem, teasing, family dynamics, and exposure to media images have also been identified as risk factors. While it is enticing to consider a single behavioral risk factor, doing so fails to consider the documented environmental, social, psychological, biological, and cultural factors that contribute to the development of an eating disorder in a multidimensional and complex integration that is undoubtedly unique to everyone. Focusing only on any one factor without taking the complex etiology into account is remiss. For example, it has been suggested that the use of dietary supplements may lead to eating disorders, despite a lack of evidence to support this conjecture. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the evidence-based risk factors for eating disorders and discuss why connecting dietary supplements to eating disorder etiology is not supported by the scientific literature and may interfere with treatment. Established, effective prevention and treatment approaches for eating disorders should be the focus of public health initiatives in this domain.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".