MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7093679088

Metacognition in individuals with a lifetime history of anorexia nervosa: a voxel based morphometry\nstudy.

2014· article· en· W7093679088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelAlexithymiaVoxel-based morphometryMetacognitionMagnetic resonance imagingBrain sizeLow resolutionCingulum (brain)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of the current study was to provide a preliminary investigation of metacognition (MC) and global\nand regional cerebral volume in women with a lifetime history of Anorexia Nervosa (AN) compared to healthy\ncontrols (HC). In particular, we aimed to explore whether (1) MC was still affected in recovered AN patients (rec-AN)\ncompared to HC and (2) prefrontal areas sustaining MC were morphometrically different in rec-AN compared to HC,\nusing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).\nMethod: Nine adult drug-free rec-AN females (age: M=23.22; SD=+5.91) and nine adult HC (age: M=23.33;\nSD=+2.67) underwent the psychometric assessment consisting of the Thought Control Questionnaire (TCQ), the\nMetacognition Questionnaire (MCQ), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20) and high resolution T1-weighted\nvoxel based morphometric (VBM) MRI (224 contiguous slices, voxel size = 0.7×0.7×0.7, FOV=320×320, TR=20ms,\nTE=4.89ms, band = 130Hz/Px), using a 1.5 Tesla Siemens Magneton Avanto scanner. We used Voxel-Based\nMorphometry (VBM) to characterize brain differences in gray matter volume between the groups.\nLocal grey matter volume (GMV) differences between the two groups were detected using a Region of Interest (ROI)\nanalysis and a Whole Brain Analysis to strengthen and widen the ROI's results (with p<0.001). Based on the\nevidence regarding the neural basis of metacognition [1], masks were created around twelve areas, mainly located\nin the frontal lobes. Mann–Whitney test was performed to compare TCQ, MCQ and TAS-20 scores between rec-AN\nand HC, with α set at < 0.05.\nResults: The analyses revealed that rec-AN and HC did not differ for both metacognitive abilities, alexithymic traits\nand global GM volumes.\nThe Region of Interest (ROI) analysis showed reduced GMVs in the right Superior Frontal Gyrus (SFG) and increased\nGMVs in the Temporo-Parietal Junction (TPJ) and Inferior Frontal Gyrus (IFG) in rec-AN compared to HC. Besides,\nthe Whole Brain Analysis (WBA) found that rec-AN, compared to HC, showed reduced GMVs in the Left Superior\nParietal Lobule (SPL), the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus (IFG), the Right Inferior Occipital Gyrus (IOG), the Left Fusiform\nGyrus (FG) and the cerebellum's culmen but not in the DLPFC. \nConclusion: The GMV reduction seems to be aspecifically distributed in different brain areas, as found in other VBM\nstudies which investigated adult acute and weight-restored AN patients [2,3].\nSeveral lines of evidence sustain that frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital and cerebellar regions are involved in body\nshape perception, cognitive and emotional processing, which are often impaired in AN [3]. However, there was no\nGM decrease in brain areas specifically supporting metacognitive functioning [1], which was not compromised in\nrec-AN.\nThese findings suggest that clinical recovery (i.e. achievement of adequate body weight and remission of Eating\nDisorder psychopathology) may accompany the restoration of neurobiological underpinnings of ‘thinking about\nthinking’ processes, and that MC impairment may not represent a stable marker of AN.\nDifferences in regional GM volume may be linked to the past starvation, but whether they are state or trait is\nunclear. These discrete brain volume differences provide candidate brain regions for further structural and functional\nstudy in people with Eating Disorders.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua)Same topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207