Exploring latent profiles of disordered eating using an indicator of dietary restriction in an undergraduate sample of men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Latent class or latent profile analysis (LPA) studies in patients with eating disorders consistently identify a low-weight, restrictive eating subgroup that does not endorse weight/shape concerns. To date, similar studies in samples unselected for disordered eating symptoms have not identified a high restriction-low weight/shape concerns group, which may be due to a lack of inclusion of measures of dietary restriction. METHOD: We conducted an LPA using data from 1623 college students (54% female) recruited across three different studies. The Eating Pathology Symptoms Inventory Body Dissatisfaction, Cognitive Restraint, Restricting, and Binge Eating subscales were used as indicators, and body mass index, gender, and dataset were covaried. Purging, excessive exercise, emotion dysregulation, and harmful alcohol use were compared across resulting clusters. RESULTS: Fit indices supported a 10-class solution, including five disordered eating groups (largest to smallest): "Elevated General Disordered Eating", "Body Dissatisfied Binge Eating," "Most Severe General Disordered Eating," "Non-Body Dissatisfied Binge Eating," and "Non-Body Dissatisfied Restriction." The "Non-Body Dissatisfied Restriction" group scored as low on other measures of traditional eating pathology and harmful alcohol use as non-disordered eating groups but scored as high on a measure of emotion dysregulation as other disordered eating groups. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to identify a latent restrictive eating group that does not endorse traditional disordered eating cognitions in an unselected sample of undergraduate students. Results underscore the importance of using measures of disordered eating behaviors without implied motivation to capture overlooked problematic eating patterns in the population that are distinct from our "traditional" understanding of disordered eating. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: We identified a group of individuals with high levels of restrictive eating but low body dissatisfaction and intent to diet in an unselected adult sample of men and women. Results underscore the need to investigate restrictive eating outside of the traditional lens of body shape concerns. Findings also suggest that individuals with nontraditional eating difficulties may struggle with emotion dysregulation, putting them at risk of poor psychological and relational outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".