MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409396202 · doi:10.1177/10608265251334322

Muscle Dysmorphia and Emotion Regulation: Findings From the Study of Boys and Men

2025· article· en· W4409396202 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kyle T. Ganson, Alexander Testa, Rachel F. Rodgers, Stuart B. Murray, Jason M. Nagata

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Men s Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to determine the association between muscle dysmorphia and emotion regulation difficulties among a sample of boys and men in Canada and the United States ( N = 1553). Multiple adjusted linear regression analyses were used to determine whether boys and men with probable muscle dysmorphia had higher scores on the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation 18-Item (DERS-18) measure. Participants with probable muscle dysmorphia, compared to those without, had significantly higher total DERS-18 scores and scores on the goals, impulse, and nonacceptance subscales. These findings add to a small literature on emotion regulation abilities among individuals with muscle dysmorphia and build on the extensive literature documenting the association between emotion regulation difficulties and psychopathology. Clinicians can consider assessing emotion regulation among boys and men displaying muscle dysmorphia symptomatology. Targeting emotion regulation abilities in treatment may be effective at addressing the significant symptoms of muscle dysmorphia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Men s StudiesSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207