Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38948255›Full record

ArticleComputational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

Updating Prospective Self-Efficacy Beliefs About Cardiac Interoception in Anorexia Nervosa: An Experimental and Computational Study.

Alkistis Saramandi, Laura Crucianelli, Athanasios Koukoutsakis, Veronica Nisticò, Liza Mavromara, Diana Goeta, Giovanni Boido, Fragiskos Gonidakis, Benedetta Demartini, Sara Bertelli and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Altered Gastrointestinal Interoception in Anorexia Nervosa Predicts Relapse.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Future of Perceptual Dysregulation in Psychiatric Nosology.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Alkistis Saramandi *Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1620-4190
Laura Crucianelli *Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9083-9114
Athanasios KoukoutsakisDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.
Veronica NisticòDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0249-9266
Liza MavromaraDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.
Diana GoetaPsychiatry Unit, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, S. Carlo General Hospital, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3117-6992
Giovanni BoidoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Fragiskos GonidakisEating Disorders' Unit, 1st Department of Psychiatry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8212-280X
Benedetta DemartiniDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4426-6014
Sara BertelliPsychiatry Unit, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, S. Paolo General Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Orsola GambiniDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1177-8139
Paul M JenkinsonDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6887-0457
Aikaterini FotopoulouDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0904-7967

Funding

European Research Council 818070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) typically hold altered beliefs about their body that they struggle to update, including global, prospective beliefs about their ability to know and regulate their body and particularly their interoceptive states. While clinical questionnaire studies have provided ample evidence on the role of such beliefs in the onset, maintenance, and treatment of AN, psychophysical studies have typically focused on perceptual and 'local' beliefs. Across two experiments, we examined how women at the acute AN (N = 86) and post-acute AN state (N = 87), compared to matched healthy controls (N = 180) formed and updated their self-efficacy beliefs retrospectively (Experiment 1) and prospectively (Experiment 2) about their heartbeat counting abilities in an adapted heartbeat counting task. As preregistered, while AN patients did not differ from controls in interoceptive accuracy

Indexed as

Anorexia NervosaBayesian Learning FrameworkBelief UpdateInteroceptionMetacognitionSelf-Efficacy

Identifiers

PMID38948255
PMCPMC11212784

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.