Low Maternal Care and Protection and Body Image Dissatisfaction as Psychopathological Predictors of Binge Eating Disorder in Transitional-Age Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Binge eating disorder (BED) frequently arises during the transitional age (18–25 years), a critical developmental period characterized by challenges in autonomy, identity formation, and interpersonal functioning. This study investigated psychopathological predictors of BED risk in this age group, with particular focus on parental bonding, attachment style, body dissatisfaction, alexithymia, and depressive symptoms. Methods: A total of 287 participants aged 18–25 years completed the Binge Eating Scale (BES), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ), and Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). Sociodemographic information and body mass index (BMI) were also collected. Results: Compared with non-BED risk groups, individuals at risk of BED exhibited significantly higher BMI, greater alexithymia, higher body dissatisfaction, more insecure attachment patterns, and lower recalled paternal and maternal care. Hierarchical binary logistic regression revealed that the final model explained 56.1% of the variance (Nagelkerke R2) and correctly classified 92.1% of cases. Significant predictors of BED included body dissatisfaction, elevated BMI, low maternal care, and low maternal protection. Conclusions: This study is the first to examine BED risk factors specifically during the transitional age. Findings indicate that body image dissatisfaction, higher BMI, and inadequate maternal emotional care and protection are salient predictors at this life stage. Preventive interventions should integrate parental psychoeducation, nutritional guidance, and therapeutic strategies addressing both eating disorder symptoms and attachment-related difficulties to reduce BED onset and improve psychosocial outcomes in emerging adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".