Relation between orthorexia nervosa and healthy orthorexia: A latent profile analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthorexic eating behaviors can be conceptualized as a bidimensional construct encompassing an orthorexia nervosa dimension (ON) and a healthy orthorexia dimension (HO). Although variable-centered studies showed that ON and HO are distinguishable orthorexic eating behaviors , the evidence of whether they can co-occur or be distinct in subgroups of individuals is still limited. The present study aimed to address previous person-centered studies' limitations by examining profiles of ON and HO among a convenience sample of 251 French-speaking Canadian adults (85.7% women; M age = 33.56). Profile membership was examined as function of participants characteristics such as age, gender, body mass index , frequency of physical activity and sports and vegetarianism. The relation between profile membership, intuitive eating and disordered eating attitudes and behaviors was also assessed. Latent profile analysis (LPA) were used to estimate profiles of ON and HO. Results from LPA did not provide support for the distinguishability of ON and HO. Indeed, they revealed the presence of two profiles showing co-occurring levels of ON and HO that only differed quantitatively: low (68.9% of the sample; low levels of ON and HO) or moderate orthorexic eating behaviors (31.1%; moderate levels of ON and HO). Participants who declared being vegetarian and being more frequently involved in physical activities and sports were more likely to belong to the moderate orthorexic eating behaviors' profile. Finally, participants from the moderate orthorexic eating behaviors' profile showed higher levels of disordered eating attitudes and behaviors, whereas those from the low orthorexic eating behaviors’ profile showed higher levels of intuitive eating. Findings from the present study question the distinguishability of ON and HO dimensions. They also suggest that, similarly to ON, HO is also related to higher eating and lifestyle preoccupations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".