What kind of illness is anorexia nervosa? Revisited: some preliminary thoughts to finding a cure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two decades have elapsed since our publication of 'What kind of illness is anorexia nervosa?'. The question remains whether our understanding of anorexia nervosa and its treatment thereof has evolved over this time. The verdict is disappointing at best. Our current gold standard treatments remain over-valued and clinical outcomes are modest at best. Those in our field are haunted by the constant reminder that anorexia nervosa carries the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder. This cannot continue and demands immediate action. In this essay, we tackle the myths that bedevil our field and explore a deeper phenotyping of anorexia nervosa. We argue that we can no longer declare agnostic views of the disorder or conceive treatments that are "brainless": it is incumbent upon us to challenge the prevailing zeitgeist and reconceptualise anorexia nervosa. Here we provide a roadmap for the future.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.068 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".