Prevalence of body-focused repetitive behaviors in a diverse population sample – rates across age, gender, race and education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prevalence estimates for body-focused repetitive behaviors (BFRBs) such as trichotillomania differ greatly across studies owing to several confounding factors (e.g. different criteria). For the present study, we recruited a diverse online sample to provide estimates for nine subtypes of BFRBs and body-focused repetitive disorders (BFRDs). METHODS: The final sample comprised 1481 individuals from the general population. Several precautions were taken to recruit a diverse sample and to exclude participants with low reliability. We matched participants on gender, race, education and age range to allow unbiased interpretation. RESULTS: While almost all participants acknowledged at least one BFRB in their lifetime (97.1%), the rate for BFRDs was 24%. Nail biting (11.4%), dermatophagia (8.7%), skin picking (8.2%), and lip-cheek biting (7.9%) were the most frequent BFRDs. Whereas men showed more lifetime BFRBs, the rate of BFRDs was higher in women than in men. Rates of BFRDs were low in older participants, especially after the age of 40. Overall, BFRBs and BFRDs were more prevalent in White than in non-White individuals. Education did not show a strong association with BFRB/BFRDs. DISCUSSION: BFRBs are ubiquitous. More severe forms, BFRDs, manifest in approximately one out of four people. In view of the often-irreversible somatic sequelae (e.g. scars) BFRBs/BFRDs deserve greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention by clinicians working in both psychology/psychiatry and somatic medicine (especially dermatology and dentistry).
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it