Body dysmorphic disorder and its associations with shame, adverse childhood experiences, and self-compassion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and its subtype, muscle dysmorphic disorder (MDD), are relatively common and impairing conditions. Previous systematic reviews have indicated a possible association of body image difficulties with gender and sexual minority status. However, no systematic review to date has explored the relationship between BDD/MDD and gender or sexual identity. Aims: We aimed to determine whether BDD/MDD symptoms were more common in gender and sexual minority groups compared with cisgendered and heterosexual people. Methods: We synthesised the current literature using systematic review methodology. PsycINFO, PubMed, ProQuest Psychology Database, and MEDLINE were systematically searched from inception to October 2023, using relevant keywords. The search identified 12 studies meeting inclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess their methodological quality. Results: Results indicated a tentative, positive association between minoritised sexual orientation and BDD, though this was not consistent across studies and effect sizes were small. Most studies found no significant associations between sexual orientation and MDD symptoms. With respect to gender, there was evidence that BDD symptoms are more common among individuals who identify as female, transgender or nonbinary, compared to males. In contrast, MDD symptoms were generally found to be highest in cisgender men, with some evidence to suggest that transgender and nonbinary individuals have comparable difficulties with certain symptoms such as appearance intolerance and drive for size. Conclusions: BDD may be associated with minority sexual orientation, or with female or minoritised gender. MDD may be associated with male gender but not sexuality; muscle-related appearance intolerance may also be elevated in transgender or nonbinary people. However, results must be interpreted with caution due to the small number of eligible studies and variability in both research quality and operationalisation of variables between studies. There is a need for future research to further examine these associations and any underlying mechanisms of association.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".