Restrictive and Binge‐Purge <scp>OSFED</scp> Variants: Clinical Features and Comparisons With Classical Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Current diagnostic nomenclature includes "atypical" eating disorders (EDs) under the term other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED). Previous studies suggest that individuals with OSFED have similar psychological and concurrent symptoms to individuals with "classical" EDs. Our study compared people with OSFED to those with classical EDs on indices reflecting ED pathology, concurrent psychological symptoms, personality traits, functional impairment, illness duration, and pretreatment motivation. We also compared OSFED variants characterized solely by restrictive eating behaviors (OSFED-R) to variants in which binge-eating and/or purging symptoms predominated (OSFED-B/P). METHODS: Participants were 836 treatment-seeking adults (185 AN-Restricting type [AN-R], 165 AN Binge-eating/purging type [AN-B/P], 276 BN, 104 OSFED-R, and 106 OSFED-B/P) starting outpatient ED treatment. Data were analyzed with generalized linear models. RESULTS: Overall, findings in individuals with OSFED were comparable to those in people with a "classical" ED diagnosis on self-reported measures of concurrent psychological symptoms, personality traits, functional impairment, illness duration, and treatment motivation. However, relative to people with AN-R, individuals with OSFED-R reported higher levels of psychological ED symptoms (p < 0.001). The OSFED-B/P group had even more ED-related psychological symptoms than did the OSFED-R group (p = 0.02), but did not differ from the AN-B/P and BN groups on any of our indices. DISCUSSION: Findings extend previous research, underscoring the point that OSFED syndromes have serious clinical implications, comparable to those associated with full-threshold AN and BN. Results also highlight the relevance of examining heterogeneity within the OSFED category in function of a restrictive vs. binge/purge distinction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".