Factors predicting disordered eating and the prevalence of eating disorders in adolescent elite athletes, trained athletes and a reference group: a prospective controlled two-step study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively examine the prevalence of diagnosed eating disorders (ED-diagnosis), ED-symptoms and factors predicting ED-symptoms in three male and female high school student groups: elite athletes, trained athletes and a non-athlete reference group at baseline (T1) and 1-year follow-up (T2). METHODS: A survey was administered at baseline (T1) (n=1186) and 1-year follow-up (T2) (n=1144) (step-one). Participants classified with ED-symptoms by the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDEQ 6.0) at T2 were invited to a diagnostic interview (step-two). RESULTS: Prevalence of ED-diagnosis for males and females were 6.9% and 9.3% in elite athletes, 5.9% and 11.2% in trained athletes and 3.0% and 11.9% in references, respectively. No group differences were statistically significant. Male references had more ED-symptoms compared with elite and trained male athletes (EDEQ-global score 0.81 vs <0.55), while elite female athletes had fewer ED-symptoms compared with trained female athletes and female references (EDEQ-global score 1.14 vs >1.59). Trained female athletes increased ED-symptoms over time, whereas elite female athletes consistently had fewer ED-symptoms in comparison. High ED-symptom presentation was predicted by high body mass index and more psychological distress in males, whereas for females, ED-symptoms were predicted by lower resilience, more psychological distress and being a non-athlete reference. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant group differences in the prevalence of ED-diagnosis were observed between elite athletes, trained athletes and a non-athlete reference group. Female elite athletes had fewer ED-symptoms compared with other female groups, and male references had more ED-symptoms compared with male athlete groups. Preventive measures that address psychological resilience and distress should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04003675.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".