Examining the placement of atypical anorexia nervosa in the eating disorder diagnostic hierarchy relative to bulimia nervosa and binge‐eating disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Some individuals meet the criteria for atypical anorexia nervosa and another eating disorder simultaneously. The current study evaluated whether allowing a diagnosis of atypical anorexia nervosa to supersede a diagnosis of bulimia nervosa (BN) or binge-eating disorder (BED) provided additional information on psychological functioning. METHODS: Archival data from 650 university students (87.7% female, 69.4% white) who met Eating Disorder Diagnostic Survey for DSM-5 eating disorder criteria and completed questionnaires assessing quality of life, eating disorder-related impairment, and/or eating pathology at a single time point. Separate regression models used diagnostic category to predict quality of life and impairment. Two diagnostic schemes were used: the DSM-5 diagnostic scheme and an alternative scheme where atypical anorexia nervosa superseded all diagnoses except anorexia nervosa. Model fit was compared using the Davidson-Mackinnon J test. Analyses were pre-registered (https://osf.io/2ejcd). RESULTS: Allowing an atypical anorexia nervosa diagnosis to supersede a BN or BED diagnosis provided better fit to the data for eating disorder-related impairment (p = .02; n = 271), but not physical, psychological, or social quality of life (p's ≥ .33; n = 306). Allowing an atypical anorexia nervosa diagnosis to supersede a BN or BED diagnosis provided a better fit in cross-sectional models predicting purging (p = .02; n = 638), but not body dissatisfaction, binge eating, restricting, or excessive exercise (p's ≥ .08; n's = 633-647). DISCUSSION: The current data support retaining the DSM-5 diagnostic scheme. More longitudinal work is needed to understand the predictive validity of the atypical anorexia nervosa diagnosis. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: The current study examined how changes to the diagnostic categories for eating disorders may change how diagnoses are associated with quality of life and impairment. Overall, findings suggest that the diagnostic hierarchy should be maintained.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".