Affective processes underlying restrictive eating in atypical anorexia nervosa: Comparisons to anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa using ecological momentary assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Certain symptom and risk/maintenance factor similarities between individuals with atypical anorexia nervosa (AN) and 'typical' AN have been documented, but few studies have investigated how atypical AN compares to bulimia nervosa (BN). Further, the role of affective mechanisms in maintaining restrictive eating in atypical AN has not been examined. The current study investigated whether atypical AN resembles AN and/or BN on affect-related processes using questionnaires and ecological momentary assessment (EMA). METHOD: Women with atypical AN (n = 24), AN-restrictive subtype, (n = 27), AN-binge eating/purging subtype (n = 34), and BN (n = 58) completed questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms and emotion regulation difficulties. They also completed a 14-day EMA protocol during which they reported negative and positive affect and skipped meals five times/day (signal-contingent surveys) and restrictive eating after meals/snacks (event-contingent surveys). RESULTS: Diagnostic groups generally did not differ on questionnaire measures nor affective patterns surrounding restrictive eating behaviors. Momentary changes in affect did not predict or follow restriction at meals/snacks, though higher momentary negative affect ratings predicted skipped meals, and higher positive affect was reported after skipped meals. Greater average negative affect and lower average positive affect predicted both restrictive eating behaviors. DISCUSSION: Across diagnoses, reductions in food intake do not appear to be influenced by momentary changes in affect, though skipping meals may serve an emotion regulation function. Atypical AN seems to resemble AN and BN on affective processes underlying restrictive eating, raising further questions regarding the unique diagnosis of atypical AN. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Though atypical anorexia appears to strongly resemble anorexia nervosa, it is less clear how this disorder relates to bulimia nervosa. It is further unknown whether affective-related processes underlie restrictive eating in atypical anorexia nervosa, and how these processes compare to those in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Results suggest that atypical anorexia does not differ from anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa on emotion-related measures, nor in affective patterns surrounding restrictive eating behaviors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".