Too healthy for their own good: orthorexia nervosa and compulsive exercise in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The similarities and differences between orthorexia nervosa symptoms (ONs) and the symptoms and correlates of eating disorders listed in the DSM-5 need to be elucidated. ONs were examined in a volunteer community sample in conjunction with compulsive exercise, disordered eating, as well as emotional and behavioral correlates of eating disorders. METHODS: Participants were 561 adult volunteers (93 men, 17.09%) aged 19-72 (M = 32.7 ± 11), recruited via social media networks. Participants self-reported on the following measures online: Düsseldorf Orthorexia Scale, Compulsive Exercise Test, Retrospective Child Feeding Questionnaire, Experiences in Close Relationships, Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, and Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire 13. Data were downloaded and analyzed in SPSS26 and Amos26. RESULTS: A theoretical model of the connections between the study variables was tested via SEM and confirmed. The profiles of participants with high, average and low levels of ONs were compared. Participants with the highest levels also scored highest for compulsive exercise, insecure attachment, alexithymia, emotion regulation difficulties, weight and shape concerns, body dissatisfaction, restriction, bingeing, purging and parental feeding practices of concern about child's weight and restricting and monitoring the child's intake of calorie-rich foods. DISCUSSION: High levels of ONs are related to disordered eating attitudes and behaviors, as well as to emotional and behavioral correlates of eating disorders. It is unclear to what extent these ONs are distinguishable from symptoms of other eating disorders listed in the DSM-5. Longitudinal studies may help to elucidate distinct trajectories and risk factors for ON. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control analytic study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".