Body Checking Behaviors Among Boys and Men With Muscle Dysmorphia, Anorexia Nervosa, and Atypical Anorexia Nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: First, to compare body checking behaviors among boys and men with probable muscle dysmorphia or probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa vs. those with neither. Second, to determine whether there is a difference in body checking behaviors between boys and men with probable muscle dysmorphia vs. probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa. METHODS: Data from The Study of Boys and Men (N = 1153), a sample of boys and men ages 15-35 from Canada and the United States, were analyzed. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to determine the association between muscle dysmorphia and anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa and Male Body Checking Questionnaire (MBCQ) total score and subscale scores. Post hoc Wald tests were used to compare MBCQ scores between participants with probable muscle dysmorphia vs. those with probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa. RESULTS: Participants with probable muscle dysmorphia or probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa had higher scores on the MBCQ compared to those who had neither condition in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. No significant differences were found in MBCQ scores between those with probable muscle dysmorphia and probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa. DISCUSSION: This study provides additional evidence that body checking behaviors are similar between boys and men with probable muscle dysmorphia and probable anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa, highlighting the clinical and theoretical overlap between these conditions among boys and men. Assessment and treatment of muscle dysmorphia and anorexia nervosa/atypical anorexia nervosa should include body checking behaviors, specifically those focused on muscularity and leanness.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".