Cited by 4

A 4-year prospective study of eating disorder NOS compared with full eating disorder syndromes.

Agras·2009·International Journal of Eating Disorders

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eat.v42:6

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Differences in the correlates and clinical profiles between discrete subtypes in this study provide evidence for the validity of these distinctions.

    “Although the frequent crossover of eating disorder subtypes in longitudinal studies of adults37–39 suggests a lack of diagnostic specificity of eating disorder subtypes,40–42 differences in the correlates and clinical profiles between discrete subtypes in our study provide evidence for the validity of these distinctions.”
  • The cross-sectional design of this study limits conclusions concerning temporal relationships among comorbid conditions and prevents confirmation of findings from adult samples concerning eating disorder crossovers or transitions from subthreshold to full-threshold conditions.

    “However, the cross-sectional design of this study limits conclusions concerning temporal relationships among comorbid conditions and prevents confirmation of findings from adult samples concerning eating disorder crossovers or transitions from subthreshold to full-threshold conditions.37–39”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agras
Venue
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-09
Volume
42
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0276-3478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-108X
OpenAlex
W4230963753
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2017: 1 · 2015: 1
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Eating Disorders (publishedVersion)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review