A multifaceted approach to assessment of mentalization: the mentalization profile in patients with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:The existing literature, however sparse, suggests an association between eating disorders (ED) and mentalization ability.The aim of this study was to investigate the mentalization profile (MP) in patients with ED.It was hypothesized that patients with ED would have a lower degree of mentalization ability compared to healthy controls (HC). Materials and methods:The study is based on a cross-sectional survey on a sample of patients diagnosed with ED compared to a HC group. Results and conclusion:A total of 88 participants, distributed between patients with ED (N = 30) and HC (N = 58) were included. Results:The study results show statistically significant differences between patients with ED and HC.Thus, patients with an ED scored significantly higher on Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (uncertainty about mental states) (RFQ-U) (mean difference: 0.31, p = 0.048) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) (mean difference: 0.44, p = 0.019) compared to the HC.Furthermore, the results indicated that patients with Bulimia Nervosa (BN) may have a lower ability to mentalize about oneself as well as a generally lower ability to mentalize across different dimensions of the mentalization profile as the BN group scored significantly higher on RFQ-U (mean difference: 0.71, p = 0.023) and TAS-20 (mean difference: 0.89, p = 0.006) compared to the Anorexia Nervosa (AN) group.Further research should be conducted to gain knowledge on the mentalization ability in patients with an ED.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".