how to summarize research articles

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Research Summary

It’s a common perception that writing a research summary is a quick and easy task. After all, how hard can jotting down 300 words be? But when you consider the weight those 300 words carry, writing a research summary as a part of your dissertation, essay or compelling draft for your paper instantly becomes daunting task.

A research summary requires you to synthesize a complex research paper into an informative, self-explanatory snapshot. It needs to portray what your article contains. Thus, writing it often comes at the end of the task list.

Regardless of when you’re planning to write, it is no less of a challenge, particularly if you’re doing it for the first time. This blog will take you through everything you need to know about research summary so that you have an easier time with it.

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is the part of your research paper that describes its findings to the audience in a brief yet concise manner. A well-curated research summary represents you and your knowledge about the information written in the research paper.

While writing a quality research summary, you need to discover and identify the significant points in the research and condense it in a more straightforward form. A research summary is like a doorway that provides access to the structure of a research paper's sections.

Since the purpose of a summary is to give an overview of the topic, methodology, and conclusions employed in a paper, it requires an objective approach. No analysis or criticism.

Research summary or Abstract. What’s the Difference?

They’re both brief, concise, and give an overview of an aspect of the research paper. So, it’s easy to understand why many new researchers get the two confused. However, a research summary and abstract are two very different things with individual purpose. To start with, a research summary is written at the end while the abstract comes at the beginning of a research paper.

A research summary captures the essence of the paper at the end of your document. It focuses on your topic, methods, and findings. More like a TL;DR, if you will. An abstract, on the other hand, is a description of what your research paper is about. It tells your reader what your topic or hypothesis is, and sets a context around why you have embarked on your research.

Getting Started with a Research Summary

Before you start writing, you need to get insights into your research’s content, style, and organization. There are three fundamental areas of a research summary that you should focus on.

• While deciding the contents of your research summary, you must include a section on its importance as a whole, the techniques, and the tools that were used to formulate the conclusion. Additionally, there needs to be a short but thorough explanation of how the findings of the research paper have a significance.
• To keep the summary well-organized, try to cover the various sections of the research paper in separate paragraphs. Besides, how the idea of particular factual research came up first must be explained in a separate paragraph.
• As a general practice worldwide, research summaries are restricted to 300-400 words. However, if you have chosen a lengthy research paper, try not to exceed the word limit of 10% of the entire research paper.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

The research summary is nothing but a concise form of the entire research paper. Therefore, the structure of a summary stays the same as the paper. So, include all the section titles and write a little about them. The structural elements that a research summary must consist of are:

It represents the topic of the research. Try to phrase it so that it includes the key findings or conclusion of the task.

The abstract gives a context of the research paper. Unlike the abstract at the beginning of a paper, the abstract here, should be very short since you’ll be working with a limited word count.

Introduction

This is the most crucial section of a research summary as it helps readers get familiarized with the topic. You should include the definition of your topic, the current state of the investigation, and practical relevance in this part. Additionally, you should present the problem statement, investigative measures, and any hypothesis in this section.

Methodology

This section provides details about the methodology and the methods adopted to conduct the study. You should write a brief description of the surveys, sampling, type of experiments, statistical analysis, and the rationality behind choosing those particular methods.

Create a list of evidence obtained from the various experiments with a primary analysis, conclusions, and interpretations made upon that. In the paper research paper, you will find the results section as the most detailed and lengthy part. Therefore, you must pick up the key elements and wisely decide which elements are worth including and which are worth skipping.

This is where you present the interpretation of results in the context of their application. Discussion usually covers results, inferences, and theoretical models explaining the obtained values, key strengths, and limitations. All of these are vital elements that you must include in the summary.

Most research papers merge conclusion with discussions. However, depending upon the instructions, you may have to prepare this as a separate section in your research summary. Usually, conclusion revisits the hypothesis and provides the details about the validation or denial about the arguments made in the research paper, based upon how convincing the results were obtained.

The structure of a research summary closely resembles the anatomy of a scholarly article . Additionally, you should keep your research and references limited to authentic and  scholarly sources only.

Tips for Writing a Research Summary

The core concept behind undertaking a research summary is to present a simple and clear understanding of your research paper to the reader. The biggest hurdle while doing that is the number of words you have at your disposal. So, follow the steps below to write a research summary that sticks.

1. Read the parent paper thoroughly

You should go through the research paper thoroughly multiple times to ensure that you have a complete understanding of its contents. A 3-stage reading process helps.

a. Scan: In the first read, go through it to get an understanding of its basic concept and methodologies.

b. Read: For the second step, read the article attentively by going through each section, highlighting the key elements, and subsequently listing the topics that you will include in your research summary.

c. Skim: Flip through the article a few more times to study the interpretation of various experimental results, statistical analysis, and application in different contexts.

Sincerely go through different headings and subheadings as it will allow you to understand the underlying concept of each section. You can try reading the introduction and conclusion simultaneously to understand the motive of the task and how obtained results stay fit to the expected outcome.

2. Identify the key elements in different sections

While exploring different sections of an article, you can try finding answers to simple what, why, and how. Below are a few pointers to give you an idea:

• What is the research question and how is it addressed?
• Is there a hypothesis in the introductory part?
• What type of methods are being adopted?
• What is the sample size for data collection and how is it being analyzed?
• What are the most vital findings?
• Do the results support the hypothesis?

Discussion/Conclusion

• What is the final solution to the problem statement?
• What is the explanation for the obtained results?
• What is the drawn inference?
• What are the various limitations of the study?

3. Prepare the first draft

Now that you’ve listed the key points that the paper tries to demonstrate, you can start writing the summary following the standard structure of a research summary. Just make sure you’re not writing statements from the parent research paper verbatim.

Instead, try writing down each section in your own words. This will not only help in avoiding plagiarism but will also show your complete understanding of the subject. Alternatively, you can use a summarizing tool (AI-based summary generators) to shorten the content or summarize the content without disrupting the actual meaning of the article.

SciSpace Copilot is one such helpful feature! You can easily upload your research paper and ask Copilot to summarize it. You will get an AI-generated, condensed research summary. SciSpace Copilot also enables you to highlight text, clip math and tables, and ask any question relevant to the research paper; it will give you instant answers with deeper context of the article..

4. Include visuals

One of the best ways to summarize and consolidate a research paper is to provide visuals like graphs, charts, pie diagrams, etc.. Visuals make getting across the facts, the past trends, and the probabilistic figures around a concept much more engaging.

5. Double check for plagiarism

It can be very tempting to copy-paste a few statements or the entire paragraphs depending upon the clarity of those sections. But it’s best to stay away from the practice. Even paraphrasing should be done with utmost care and attention.

Also: QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

6. Religiously follow the word count limit

You need to have strict control while writing different sections of a research summary. In many cases, it has been observed that the research summary and the parent research paper become the same length. If that happens, it can lead to discrediting of your efforts and research summary itself. Whatever the standard word limit has been imposed, you must observe that carefully.

7. Proofread your research summary multiple times

The process of writing the research summary can be exhausting and tiring. However, you shouldn’t allow this to become a reason to skip checking your academic writing several times for mistakes like misspellings, grammar, wordiness, and formatting issues. Proofread and edit until you think your research summary can stand out from the others, provided it is drafted perfectly on both technicality and comprehension parameters. You can also seek assistance from editing and proofreading services , and other free tools that help you keep these annoying grammatical errors at bay.

8. Watch while you write

Keep a keen observation of your writing style. You should use the words very precisely, and in any situation, it should not represent your personal opinions on the topic. You should write the entire research summary in utmost impersonal, precise, factually correct, and evidence-based writing.

9. Ask a friend/colleague to help

Once you are done with the final copy of your research summary, you must ask a friend or colleague to read it. You must test whether your friend or colleague could grasp everything without referring to the parent paper. This will help you in ensuring the clarity of the article.

Once you become familiar with the research paper summary concept and understand how to apply the tips discussed above in your current task, summarizing a research summary won’t be that challenging. While traversing the different stages of your academic career, you will face different scenarios where you may have to create several research summaries.

In such cases, you just need to look for answers to simple questions like “Why this study is necessary,” “what were the methods,” “who were the participants,” “what conclusions were drawn from the research,” and “how it is relevant to the wider world.” Once you find out the answers to these questions, you can easily create a good research summary following the standard structure and a precise writing style.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Summary

Definition:

A research summary is a brief and concise overview of a research project or study that highlights its key findings, main points, and conclusions. It typically includes a description of the research problem, the research methods used, the results obtained, and the implications or significance of the findings. It is often used as a tool to quickly communicate the main findings of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or decision-makers.

Structure of Research Summary

The Structure of a Research Summary typically include:

• Introduction : This section provides a brief background of the research problem or question, explains the purpose of the study, and outlines the research objectives.
• Methodology : This section explains the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. It describes the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Results : This section presents the main findings of the study, including statistical analysis if applicable. It may include tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data.
• Discussion : This section interprets the results and explains their implications. It discusses the significance of the findings, compares them to previous research, and identifies any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclusion : This section summarizes the main points of the research and provides a conclusion based on the findings. It may also suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• References : This section lists the sources cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

How to Write Research Summary

Here are the steps you can follow to write a research summary:

• Read the research article or study thoroughly: To write a summary, you must understand the research article or study you are summarizing. Therefore, read the article or study carefully to understand its purpose, research design, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Identify the main points : Once you have read the research article or study, identify the main points, key findings, and research question. You can highlight or take notes of the essential points and findings to use as a reference when writing your summary.
• Write the introduction: Start your summary by introducing the research problem, research question, and purpose of the study. Briefly explain why the research is important and its significance.
• Summarize the methodology : In this section, summarize the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. Explain the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Present the results: Summarize the main findings of the study. Use tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data if necessary.
• Interpret the results: In this section, interpret the results and explain their implications. Discuss the significance of the findings, compare them to previous research, and identify any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclude the summary : Summarize the main points of the research and provide a conclusion based on the findings. Suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• Revise and edit : Once you have written the summary, revise and edit it to ensure that it is clear, concise, and free of errors. Make sure that your summary accurately represents the research article or study.
• Add references: Include a list of references cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

Example of Research Summary

Here is an example of a research summary:

Title: The Effects of Yoga on Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: This meta-analysis examines the effects of yoga on mental health. The study aimed to investigate whether yoga practice can improve mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, stress, and quality of life.

Methodology : The study analyzed data from 14 randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of yoga on mental health outcomes. The sample included a total of 862 participants. The yoga interventions varied in length and frequency, ranging from four to twelve weeks, with sessions lasting from 45 to 90 minutes.

Results : The meta-analysis found that yoga practice significantly improved mental health outcomes. Participants who practiced yoga showed a significant reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as stress levels. Quality of life also improved in those who practiced yoga.

Discussion : The findings of this study suggest that yoga can be an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. The study supports the growing body of evidence that suggests that yoga can have a positive impact on mental health. Limitations of the study include the variability of the yoga interventions, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion : Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis support the use of yoga as an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the optimal length and frequency of yoga interventions for different populations.

References :

• Cramer, H., Lauche, R., Langhorst, J., Dobos, G., & Berger, B. (2013). Yoga for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Depression and anxiety, 30(11), 1068-1083.
• Khalsa, S. B. (2004). Yoga as a therapeutic intervention: a bibliometric analysis of published research studies. Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, 48(3), 269-285.
• Ross, A., & Thomas, S. (2010). The health benefits of yoga and exercise: a review of comparison studies. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(1), 3-12.

Purpose of Research Summary

The purpose of a research summary is to provide a brief overview of a research project or study, including its main points, findings, and conclusions. The summary allows readers to quickly understand the essential aspects of the research without having to read the entire article or study.

Research summaries serve several purposes, including:

• Facilitating comprehension: A research summary allows readers to quickly understand the main points and findings of a research project or study without having to read the entire article or study. This makes it easier for readers to comprehend the research and its significance.
• Communicating research findings: Research summaries are often used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public. The summary presents the essential aspects of the research in a clear and concise manner, making it easier for non-experts to understand.
• Supporting decision-making: Research summaries can be used to support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. This information can be used by policymakers or practitioners to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Saving time: Research summaries save time for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders who need to review multiple research studies. Rather than having to read the entire article or study, they can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.

Characteristics of Research Summary

The following are some of the key characteristics of a research summary:

• Concise : A research summary should be brief and to the point, providing a clear and concise overview of the main points of the research.
• Objective : A research summary should be written in an objective tone, presenting the research findings without bias or personal opinion.
• Comprehensive : A research summary should cover all the essential aspects of the research, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research summary should accurately reflect the key findings and conclusions of the research.
• Clear and well-organized: A research summary should be easy to read and understand, with a clear structure and logical flow.
• Relevant : A research summary should focus on the most important and relevant aspects of the research, highlighting the key findings and their implications.
• Audience-specific: A research summary should be tailored to the intended audience, using language and terminology that is appropriate and accessible to the reader.
• Citations : A research summary should include citations to the original research articles or studies, allowing readers to access the full text of the research if desired.

When to write Research Summary

Here are some situations when it may be appropriate to write a research summary:

• Proposal stage: A research summary can be included in a research proposal to provide a brief overview of the research aims, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.
• Conference presentation: A research summary can be prepared for a conference presentation to summarize the main findings of a study or research project.
• Journal submission: Many academic journals require authors to submit a research summary along with their research article or study. The summary provides a brief overview of the study’s main points, findings, and conclusions and helps readers quickly understand the research.
• Funding application: A research summary can be included in a funding application to provide a brief summary of the research aims, objectives, and expected outcomes.
• Policy brief: A research summary can be prepared as a policy brief to communicate research findings to policymakers or stakeholders in a concise and accessible manner.

Advantages of Research Summary

Research summaries offer several advantages, including:

• Time-saving: A research summary saves time for readers who need to understand the key findings and conclusions of a research project quickly. Rather than reading the entire research article or study, readers can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.
• Clarity and accessibility: A research summary provides a clear and accessible overview of the research project’s main points, making it easier for readers to understand the research without having to be experts in the field.
• Improved comprehension: A research summary helps readers comprehend the research by providing a brief and focused overview of the key findings and conclusions, making it easier to understand the research and its significance.
• Enhanced communication: Research summaries can be used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public, in a concise and accessible manner.
• Facilitated decision-making: Research summaries can support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. Policymakers or practitioners can use this information to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Increased dissemination: Research summaries can be easily shared and disseminated, allowing research findings to reach a wider audience.

Limitations of Research Summary

Limitations of the Research Summary are as follows:

• Limited scope: Research summaries provide a brief overview of the research project’s main points, findings, and conclusions, which can be limiting. They may not include all the details, nuances, and complexities of the research that readers may need to fully understand the study’s implications.
• Risk of oversimplification: Research summaries can be oversimplified, reducing the complexity of the research and potentially distorting the findings or conclusions.
• Lack of context: Research summaries may not provide sufficient context to fully understand the research findings, such as the research background, methodology, or limitations. This may lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the research.
• Possible bias: Research summaries may be biased if they selectively emphasize certain findings or conclusions over others, potentially distorting the overall picture of the research.
• Format limitations: Research summaries may be constrained by the format or length requirements, making it challenging to fully convey the research’s main points, findings, and conclusions.
• Accessibility: Research summaries may not be accessible to all readers, particularly those with limited literacy skills, visual impairments, or language barriers.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article summary.

• Writing an article REVIEW
• Writing an article CRITIQUE
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

When writing a summary, the goal is to compose a concise and objective overview of the original article. The summary should focus only on the article's main ideas and important details that support those ideas.

Guidelines for summarizing an article:

• State the main ideas.
• Identify the most important details that support the main ideas.
• Summarize in your own words.
• Do not copy phrases or sentences unless they are being used as direct quotations.
• Express the underlying meaning of the article, but do not critique or analyze.
• The summary should be about one third the length of the original article. 

Your summary should include:

• Give an overview of the article, including the title and the name of the author.
• Provide a thesis statement that states the main idea of the article.
• Use the body paragraphs to explain the supporting ideas of your thesis statement.
• One-paragraph summary - one sentence per supporting detail, providing 1-2 examples for each.
• Multi-paragraph summary - one paragraph per supporting detail, providing 2-3 examples for each.
• Start each paragraph with a topic sentence.
• Use transitional words and phrases to connect ideas.
• Summarize your thesis statement and the underlying meaning of the article.

 Adapted from "Guidelines for Using In-Text Citations in a Summary (or Research Paper)" by Christine Bauer-Ramazani, 2020

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

How to Write a Summary - Guide & Examples  (from Scribbr.com)

Writing a Summary  (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

• Next: Writing an article REVIEW >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

Scholarly Articles

• Scholarly article sections
• What is peer review?
• Reading scholarly articles practice
• Handouts: Reading & Evaluating
• How do I summarize a scholarly article?
• How do I find scholarly articles?
• Wrapping up scholarly articles

One strategy is to write down a quick summary of your understanding of the article right after you read it. This could be on a sticky note or in an email draft or a Word document, depending on what works best for you. Try writing down, in your own words:

• What problem the researcher was approaching
• What they did to study the problem
• What they found

This might look something like:

[Researchers] studied [topic] by [method] and found that [results]. Limitations included [limitations of study]. The authors suggest future research on [questions raised].

Dwyer et. al studied how college students' perceive pizza delivery. They surveyed local pizzerias to determine the amount of pizza delivered to a large public university in the United States over an entire academic year and found that most of the orders were large (for campus events), indicating a decline in student excitement about pizza. Dwyer et. al did not gain any data directly from students, which is recommended for further research.

You might also want to include:

• An important quote if necessary (including page numbers)
• A short reflection of how this source fits in with your topic and your other sources (does it present a new or conflicting point of view? etc.)
• A short reflection of how you might use it in your work (as background info, etc.)
• A short evaluation (is the author credible? etc.)
• The citation/reference

These notes are sometimes called " synthesis notes ." You can repeat this process with each source, and even build out an " annotated bibliography " if that works for you.

Consider reaching out to the SLCC Student Reading & Writing Center for more assistance.

Most Popular

12 days ago

How To Cite A Report

Using grammarly placed a student on academic probation.

11 days ago

How To Cite A Lab Manual

13 days ago

Reddit Bursts With Discussions Over The Teachers Using GPT-4’s Vision to Grade Assignments

How to cite art, how to summarize a research article.

Image: unsplash.com

Ever found yourself swimming through the sea of a research article’s content, wondering how to find those golden nuggets of useful information? Summarizing a research article is your treasure map. It’s a great skill to know how to find the essence, pinpoint the relevant findings, and present them on a silver platter. You can do it in just a few quick steps that include understanding the article’s purpose, skimming for key points, digging deeper into its content, and then writing and refining your summary.

What Is A Research Article?

If you’re still uncertain how to summarize a research article, the first step should be to gain a complete understanding of this type of writing. Research articles are special kinds of writings found mostly in academic and scientific journals. They have a specific structure that sets them apart from other types of writing you’ve probably done before – like essays, for example. This structure includes sections such as the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References. Each part plays its role:

Now that you’re familiar with what a research article is and its key components, let’s find out how to effectively summarize it.

Summarizing a research article can be divided into two stages. There is something you should do before writing, and there are also very important things to keep in mind during actually writing. Here we break them down for your convenience:

Before writing

Summarizing a research paper involves understanding its main ideas and communicating its results clearly. Here’s how to do it successfully:

Determine Your Focus:  First, pinpoint why you’re summarizing the article. If it’s for personal study, you might opt for a detailed summary. For inclusion in a paper, concentrate on how the article’s insights relate specifically to your work. Your purpose shapes your summary’s focus.

Read the Article:  Allow much time for comprehension. Understanding a research article can be more time-consuming than expected. You’re ready to summarize only when you can explain the study in your own words to someone unfamiliar with the article.

Scan the context:  Avoid getting lost in the details by scanning the article to identify the main points. Focus on understanding the research question, hypotheses, methods, findings, and their interpretation. This step helps in getting the study’s core without getting bogged down.

Underline Key Points:  As you scan, underline significant sentences or jot down key points in the margins. This practice helps in isolating the essential information, although relying only on the abstract is not advisable due to its condensed nature.

Read for Depth:  After identifying the main points, dedicate more attention to each section. Ask critical questions about the study’s design, the results convincingness, and what new insights the study contributes. This in-depth reading provides a deeper understanding.

Avoid Plagiarism:  Ensure originality by taking notes in your own words and paraphrasing key points. Understanding the content well enough to rephrase it is crucial for avoiding plagiarism.

Or just leave it to our Free Summarizing Tool

During writing.

Now that all the preparation work has been completed and all the required material has been collected, you can start working.

Write a First Draft:  Begin by drafting your summary, following the article’s structure. Highlight the research question, hypotheses, methods, results, and their significance. Initially, focus on content rather than length, which can be adjusted later.

Focus on the Hypotheses, Methods, and Results:  Start by writing about these sections as they form the study’s backbone. Explaining these elements provides a clear overview of the research’s objectives, execution, and findings.

Introduction and Discussion:  Write about these sections after covering the core elements. They provide context and interpret the study’s implications, enriching your summary with a comprehensive understanding of the research’s scope and significance.

Edit for Completeness and Accuracy:  Refine your draft by checking that all critical information is included and accurately represented. This step might involve cutting redundant details or adding necessary information for clarity.

Edit for Style:  Aim for clear, concise language that speaks directly to your audience. Avoid jargon, and unnecessary adverbs, and ensure your summary is easily understandable. Paraphrasing is preferred over direct quoting in scientific summaries. Cite the original study to give due credit.

As you’ve already figured, summarizing a research article is like drawing a map of a huge, unknown area. It’s all about understanding the main ideas, going through the detailed science, and sharing the important points in a way that’s easy to understand. With some practice, you’ll get really good at this and might even start to enjoy exploring all this new information.

How long should my summary be?

The length varies based on the article’s complexity and your summarizing purpose. Aim for conciseness while ensuring all critical information is covered.

Can I use direct quotes from the article in my summary?

Direct quotes are rare in scientific writing. They can be included only if it is necessary. Preferably, paraphrase and cite appropriately to maintain academic integrity.

How do I ensure I don’t plagiarize when summarizing?

Paraphrase in your own words, take thorough notes, and cite the original work. If you understand the article well, expressing its contents in your own language should come naturally.

Follow us on Reddit for more insights and updates.

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More from Summary Writing Guides

14 days ago

Synthesis vs Summary

Best Summarising Strategies for Students

How To Summarize A Story

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

How to Summarize Any Research Article Better: Proven Tips Outlined

Rev › Blog › Marketing › How to Summarize Any Research Article Better: Proven Tips Outlined

You’ve got content gold on your hands—  primary  and  secondary  research materials from some of the top market research companies. Now, it’s time to decide how it relates to your products, project, or consumers. What’s more, you need to distill each article’s essential parts into easy-to-read, accurate, informative, and, most importantly, concise summaries. Overwhelming? Maybe. Impossible? Heck no; you just need a good strategy. So, where to start?

You’ve landed on the right page! These tips and techniques provide a template to help guide you through the process. 

Know Your Focus

The streaming TV hit,  Cobra Kai,  brings to mind Mr. Miyagi’s age-old wisdom– ‘Focus, Daniel-San.’ Focus is vital, as some sections of a research article are more relevant to your strategy than others. 

For example, a summary crafted for a school project or a university may focus on the experiment itself. In contrast, the article’s results and discussion sections may be more relevant to consumer marketing or for a business model.

Once you establish your focus, you’re less likely to waste time.

Read The Research Article

But before you do, let’s look at the makeup of these articles. Market research, focus group data, and surveys usually consist of five or more sections.

• An abstract or hypothesis
• Explanation of the methods used
• Tests or experiments performed
• Summation and or discussion of the results
• A list of references or source materials

Read The Abstract

Since some of the research articles you find will not work for your purpose, you should always start with the abstract. It’s an overview of the data and explains the purpose of the study as well as the expected results. So you’ll know whether to include the article or move on to the next piece of research.

Take Good Notes

The next step– read the article from abstract to references. But be prepared! Your mind may wander when faced with numbers, statistics, and long-winded wording. So grab your highlighter and pen and start taking notes.

Depending on the space available, you can write your notes in the margin. If you’re in a time crunch, check out  Rev . We’ve designed a convenient application perfect for taking notes! Download our  Voice Recorder App  for free and read your notes out loud. You’ll get a 99% accurate transcription of your summary notes sent to your email or account with a simple tap. 

Research Hack:  As an overview, a research article may not include every insight from the participants, interviews, or market data. Take a look at the references. You may find some hidden gems that will help your strategy stand out.    

Outline Your Thoughts

You’ve made notes, sifted through the numbers and statistics; but, there’s still a ton of information. An outline will make your writing process much more efficient. Although each research article is relatively straight-forward, you want your summary to stay on strategy.

Write A Summary

Okay, you’re ready to condense someone else’s work. Rather than stress over grammar and length, take the pressure off by writing a rough draft. Use key points from your notes, REV transcriptions, your outline, and the research article’s sections as your guide. 

Identify The Goal And The Methods Used

Like the author’s abstract, the beginning of your summary should address the research article’s fundamental objective .  This section may also include critical details about demographics, customer behavior, or trends. When summarizing, consider three key questions. 

• What is the goal of the research?
• What methods did the author(s) use?
• Are potential obstacles to success listed?

Methods vary in market research. You may have focus groups ,  in-depth interviews , or online discussions. Depending on the reason for your summary, the raw audio or video clips used in the study may hold nuggets. If full transcripts aren’t available, save time by uploading the clips to Rev. Our human transcription service costs $1.50 per minute, and we offer a 99% accuracy guarantee. We also offer a more cost-effective A.I. speech-to-text solution for only $0.25 per minute .

Describe The Observations

The experiment is the “meat” of the research. In your own words, briefly explain what the author(s) observed as the testing played out in real-time. You can talk about the time it took participants to complete tasks or directives. Were they excited about the client’s brand or disinterested? Basically, you’re recapping the participant’s reactions. 

Discuss The Outcome

As with any study, the results make or break the goal of the research. Was the test successful? Was anyone surprised by the outcome, or were there any unexpected developments? Pay careful attention to detail as you layout all conclusions reached by the author(s).

Article Summary Quick Tips: Do This, Not That

Is your head spinning yet? You can simplify the editing process by following these technical takeaways.

• Be Careful Not To Draw Your Own Conclusions:  You are summarizing the results of the research. The last thing you want to do is editorialize your summary. To avoid this, use the third-person point of view and present tense.  
• Keep Your Copy Clean And Free Of Errors:  Reread your text. Eliminate words like “that,” “in fact,” “however,” and adverbs. Make sure your summary is accurate. Then, use free websites like  Hemingway App  or paid services such as  Grammarly  to check for grammar or spelling issues. 
• Watch For Plagiarism:  Unless you’re using a word coined by the researcher, paraphrase your text. If you notice similar wording in your summary, reread the article so you can explain the data in your own words.
• Cite Your Sources: Steer clear of directly quoting the research. It’s best to paraphrase the data and reference the source using: the name of the university, the name of the journal and year of publication, or the name of the researcher, team, or society and year of study.  

Finalize Your Article Summary

Remember, you want your summary to be clear, straight-forward, and compelling. The market research article or study you’ve chosen may prove vital to you or your client’s business strategy and brand analysis. Take your time. Read and reread your summary. Make sure it’s representative of the research. And always triple-check your text for technical and factual accuracy.

Related Content

Latest article.

How to Analyze Focus Group Data

Most popular.

Differences in Focus Groups & In-Depth Interviews for a Successful Market Research

Featured article.

How to Use Automatic Transcription as a Marketing Professional

Everybody’s favorite speech-to-text blog.

We combine AI and a huge community of freelancers to make speech-to-text greatness every day. Wanna hear more about it?

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Summarize an Article

Last Updated: February 23, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Richard Perkins and by wikiHow staff writer, Danielle Blinka, MA, MPA . Richard Perkins is a Writing Coach, Academic English Coordinator, and the Founder of PLC Learning Center. With over 24 years of education experience, he gives teachers tools to teach writing to students and works with elementary to university level students to become proficient, confident writers. Richard is a fellow at the National Writing Project. As a teacher leader and consultant at California State University Long Beach's Global Education Project, Mr. Perkins creates and presents teacher workshops that integrate the U.N.'s 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the K-12 curriculum. He holds a BA in Communications and TV from The University of Southern California and an MEd from California State University Dominguez Hills. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 743,789 times.

You might summarize an article as part of an assignment or to better understand the author’s ideas. An article summary provides an overview of the author’s thesis, purpose, and main ideas. Before you start your summary, read the article several times and make notes in the margins. Then, write a first draft that summarizes the article effectively. Finally, get feedback on your article and make revisions to finalize it.

Reading the Article

• If you have any questions, ask your instructor to get clarification.

• Highlight or underline the thesis, research question, or purpose.
• Mark the supporting points.
• Highlight the section headings.
• Note the method of study, if there is one.
• Highlight the findings, conclusions, or results.

• If possible, read it aloud to help you process the information.
• Reading the article several times will help you get a better understanding of the ideas. It’s difficult to fully understand an article on a first reading.

• It’s okay to write short phrases and fragments rather than full sentences.

Tip: Making notes in your own words will help you avoid plagiarism once you sit down to write your summary.

• You might write, “Lopez asserts that homework helps students retain more knowledge based on exam scores and self-reporting.”

Drafting a Summary

• You might say, “Inez Lopez is a former high school educator who now teaches curriculum planning as a researching professor. Her article entitled “Homework Smarts: Why Kids Need Homework” discusses why students benefit from regular homework assignments. Lopez also differentiates between effective homework and busywork, which helps educators change their lessons for the better.”

• For instance, you’d write, “Lopez argues homework is necessary to support in-class instruction because students retain more information, the class covers more curriculum, and students get more one-on-one attention in class.”

• A short summary is 1 page or shorter. For a short summary, you’ll write either 1 long paragraph or an introduction, a body paragraph, and a conclusion.
• Write, “According to Lopez, students who complete homework assignments for their core classes perform better academically.”

Tip: Summaries are usually about 1/3 of the length of the original article. You’ll only write a short summary if your original article was no longer than 3 pages long.

• If your summary is longer than 1 page, it’s considered a longer summary.
• You might write, “In her study, Lopez compared 2 different classrooms at the same high school, one that had homework and one that didn’t. Lopez asserts that students who completed homework assignments performed better academically.”

• You might write, “To support her claims, Lopez explains that students who did their homework scored 40% higher on exams, participated in class at a higher rate than students who weren’t assigned homework, and completed academic units 30% faster than classes that didn’t do homework.”

• For instance, you’d write, “In her research, Lopez studied two classes at the same high school. Both classes had a similar demographic and socioeconomic makeup and were provided the same academic supports. The control classroom did not receive homework, while the experimental classroom did. Lopez tracked the students’ homework completion rate, assignment scores, class participation, and progress through the curricula. Additionally, she conducted short student surveys after each exam.”

• You could write, “Lopez collected data such as student scores, number of incidences of class participation, and rate of lesson progression. Additionally, she asked students to rate their confidence, understanding of the material, and readiness to move on to the next unit on a survey after each exam. Based on her data, Lopez concluded that students progress as much as 30% faster if they complete daily homework assignments. To improve academic performance, Lopez recommends that teachers in core subjects assign homework every night.”

• Write something like, “According to Lopez, students are able to retain information and progress rapidly if they’re required to do homework. Her work provides teachers with a tool to promote academic success and advice on how to use homework effectively to help students.”

Making Your Summary Effective

• Your summary doesn’t need to be exact in length. As long as it’s about 1/3 of the article’s length, it should be sufficient.

Variation: If your assignment sheet lists a different length, always do as your instructor asks. For instance, your instructor might give you a word count goal of 1,500 words. If this is the case, follow their instructions.

• You’d write, "Lopez believes," "Lopez finds that," and "Lopez argues." It’s also okay to use pronouns. You might write, “She goes on to say,” “She further asserts,” or “She refutes this idea.”

Warning: Copying phrases or sentences from the original article is plagiarism. If you’re summarizing the article as part of an assignment, you will likely lose credit if you don’t restate the ideas in your own words.

Finalizing Your Summary

• For instance, ask your classmate, a writing tutor, or your teacher to give you feedback.

• You may want to do several rounds of revisions depending on the purpose of your assignment. If you’re writing this summary for a grade, make sure your final product is your best work.

• Ask someone else to proofread your paper for you if you can. Then, make changes if they spot any errors.

• Don’t include any of your own ideas, analysis, or opinions in a summary. Focus solely on the original author’s ideas.

Expert Q&A

• Make sure you follow all of your instructor’s directions so you get full credit. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• Make sure you put all of the author’s ideas in your own words so you don’t accidentally plagiarize. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 1

Sample Summaries

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries
• ↑ Richard Perkins. Writing Coach & Academic English Coordinator. Expert Interview. 1 September 2021.
• ↑ https://www.kibin.com/essay-writing-blog/how-to-summarize-an-article-the-smart-way/
• ↑ https://www.trentu.ca/academicskills/how-guides/how-write-university/how-approach-any-assignment/writing-article-summaries
• ↑ https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/introduction-structure/
• ↑ https://otis.libguides.com/mla_citations/in-text
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/revising-drafts/
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/the_writing_process/proofreading/steps_for_revising.html

About This Article

To summarize an article, start by introducing the article title and the author’s full name so the reader knows what you’re referring to. Then, give a brief overview and explanation of the topic of the article, which will either be the author’s argument or the main premise of their research. Next, outline the points they use to back up their research, but avoid direct quotations to keep your summary brief. Finally, state the author’s conclusions before going back to make sure everything you stated in your summary matches up with the original article. For tips on how to use author tags to avoid plagiarizing in a summary, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Nikky Byron

Sep 16, 2016

Did this article help you?

Ryan Freitas

Dec 17, 2019

Angelica Sabala

May 18, 2021

Jan 23, 2019

Tumaini Jackson

Nov 12, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

How to Summarize a Research Article

Research articles use a standard format to clearly communicate information about an experiment. A research article usually has seven major sections: Title, Abstract,

Related Papers

KMB Electricals & Plumbing

Jennifer L Teeter

In this study, a qualitative analysis of 276 first-year Japanese university science major responses to plagiarism to deconstruct prevailing generalizations regarding the incidence of plagiarism by Japanese university students. These students were enrolled in a compulsory yearlong English academic writing course. While utilizing a contextualized incident, rather than generalized statements, to gain a more thorough understanding of students’ perceptions of plagiarism, this study also seeks to address the current imbalances in English-language analyses on plagiarism in Japan which fail to incorporate Japanese-language sources and studies. In contrast to previous research based on hypotheses of cultural conditioning which assume students are ambivalent towards plagiarism, the students surveyed displayed a complex awareness of the educational and societal issues that frame occurrences of plagiarism and a desire to receive effective training in academic writing techniques, similar to their native English-speaking counterparts. Finally, the paper makes suggestions for pedagogy that empowers students with tools to critically navigate the dominant academic world.

Lyna Wihani

Muhammad Tariq Siddique

Troy Rubesch

Sasima Charubusp

Plagiarism has become a critical issue in the academic context around the world including Thailand. Plagiarism is generally considered a form of cheating, and some studies of Thai students suggested that this problem is rooted in Thai cultural patterns, which accept cheating as a common practice (Young 2013). Generally, three plagiarism avoidance approaches have been taught: techniques for direct quotation, paraphrasing and summarizing. However, especially paraphrasing and summarizing are subtle skills, mastery of which requires excellent literacy skills and extended practice, but in actual classes, these techniques are always presented as an abridged part of an EAP course. Apparently, such courses do not prevent plagiarism; students always continue to be penalized for copying phrases from sources because they still cannot paraphrase and summarize properly. Some plagiarism detection software packages are also used as punitive tools, which has the effect of blaming students for the problem instead of helping them learn to avoid it (William 2002). In fact, it is unreasonable to expect control of such demanding techniques after a brief lecture and limited practice. Moreover, plagiarism by EFL students may actually be unintended, and the cause may go beyond deliberate dishonesty (Sivell 2013). It could involve other related cognitive factors such as a limited level of language proficiency, lack of clear instruction, insufficient practice, and unawareness of the regulations around correct techniques for writing from sources. This study examines how Thai students and teachers perceived plagiarism, what characteristics of each group hinder plagiarism avoidance, and how being reproached for academic dishonesty affects students’ motivation for language learning.

European Scientific Journal ESJ

In academic writing, students need to incorporate outside sources. Incorporated sources involve summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting. Depending on why the source is being used, one method may be more appropriate than another. All three methods of incorporating sources require citations. Sources can be utilized for various purposes: presenting facts or statistics, serving as evidence to support an argument, lending authority to an argument or idea, i.e., authoritative discourse, providing examples and illustrations, stating an opposing viewpoint, and so on. For every source, students must determine the purpose of that source and how to best incorporate it into their writing. Both aspects are crucial to effectively integrating sources throughout the paper. Effective integrating of the sources in the EFL writing is a demanding task. Therefore, the aim of the study is to find out the difficulties and challenges the students face while using outside sources in academic writing. In achieving the aim of this study, twenty five third-year students were given an assignment to write an essay in which they had to incorporate an outside source. The study was conducted in the first semester in the academic year 2016-2017. Discussion of findings, implications and recommendations were presented after analyzing the students' works.

Rebekka Tunombili

ahmet benzer , Sümeyye Konuk , ZEYNEB ÖREN , Ayşegül SEFER

Summarizing is restating the most important ideas from an original text briefly. Students often need summary writing skill along the education life since it provides understanding and remembering the reading material. This study aims to apply book summary writing strategy which is based on in-class implementations, and to develop the students book summary writing skill with education. With this aim, to determine students' book summary writing skill and analyze the development of their book summary writing skill, researchers have developed a book summary writing strategy and also a rubric to evaluate the written summaries. While developing the book summary writing strategy, researchers have conducted the study with 44 university students studying at Turkish language teaching department in the third grade. The study lasted for 11 weeks, and the education period is implemented as one week education and one week summary writing implementation. The strategy and rubric have been updated with the students' views, feedbacks and researchers' notes during the education process. In the study, of the qualitative research methods, grounded theory was used. At the end of the study, it is stated that students have been successful in writing a book summary, tagging and taking notes, isolating from trivial details and also, they could write the summaries in a shorter time. The study findings revealed the usable book summary writing strategy and the rubric for book summary evaluation.

University of the Western Cape,[Online]

Nelleke Bak

RELATED PAPERS

Laurence Watkins

Jesús Antonio Lázaro Bello

Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE/ACM international conference on Computer-aided design - ICCAD '98

Naresh Sehgal

Guillermo Suñé

British Journal of Oral Surgery

Ruth Sánchez

Infection, Genetics and Evolution

Syed Afridi Rahman

Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A

anton kaufmann

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Social and Political Development (ICOSOP 2017)

Soetji Lestari

Research, Society and Development

Bianca Montelo

Physics Letters B

Esther Montes

Alena Volrábová

Kalam Cendekia Pgsd Kebumen

American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book

Khalid Afaneh

Energy Procedia

Harun Chowdhury

IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Nitish Thakor

Martin Schindler

EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies

Ayu Purwarianti

UCLA文凭证书 加州大学洛杉矶分校文凭证书 klhjkgh

evista de filosofie a dreptului şi filosofie socială

Gheorghiu V Laura Valeria

买詹姆士库克大学毕业证书 澳洲JCU文凭学位证书

BMJ Global Health

Emily fivian

Anaesthesist

Lorenz Frey

Zbornik Matice srpske za prirodne nauke

Maja Manojlovic

Prevention Science

Karina Weichold

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Use AI to summarize scientific articles in seconds

Send a document, get a summary. It's that easy.

If GPT had a PhD

• 50,000 words summarized
• First article summarized per month can be up to 200,000 words
• 50 documents indexed for semantic search
• 100 Chat Messages
• Unlimited article searches
• Import and summarize references with the click of a button
• 1,000,000 words summarized per month
• Maximum document length of 200,000 words
• Unlimited bulk summaries
• 10,000 chat messages per month
• 1,000 documents indexed for semantic search

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Make Decisions with a VC Mindset

• Ilya A. Strebulaev

Venture capitalists’ unique approach to investment and innovation has played a pivotal role in launching one-fifth of the largest U.S. public companies. And three-quarters of the largest U.S. companies founded in the past 50 years would not have existed or achieved their current scale without VC support.

The question is, Why? What makes venture firms so good at finding start-ups that go on to achieve tremendous success? What skills do they have that experienced, networked, and powerful large corporations lack?

The authors’ research reveals that the venture mindset is characterized by several principles: the individual over the group, disagreement over consensus, exceptions over dogma, and agility over bureaucracy. This article offers guidance to traditional firms in using the VC mindset to spur innovation.

The key is to embrace risk, disagreement, and agility.

Idea in Brief

The opportunity.

Venture capitalists’ unique approach to investment and innovation has played a pivotal role in launching one-fifth of the largest U.S. public companies, demonstrating the power of the venture mindset.

The Challenge

Traditional companies often struggle to replicate the success of venture firms because of their aversion to risk and failure and their preference for consensus and stability.

The Solution

When faced with market changes or disruptive technology, big companies should adopt the venture mindset, prioritizing the individual over the group, disagreement over consensus, exceptions over dogma, and agility over bureaucracy.

Venture investors are the hidden hand behind the most innovative companies surrounding us. According to research conducted by one of us (Ilya), venture capitalists were causally responsible for the launch of one-fifth of the 300 largest U.S. public companies in existence today. They have played an essential role in unlocking the power of the internet, the mobile revolution, and now artificial intelligence in all its forms. Apple, Google, Moderna, Netflix, Airbnb, OpenAI, Salesforce, Tesla, Uber, and Zoom—these firms disrupted entire industries despite initially having fewer resources and less support and experience than their mature, successful, cash-rich competitors. All these businesses could theoretically have emerged from within an established company—but they didn’t. Instead, they were financed and shaped by VCs. Indeed, we estimate that three-quarters of the largest U.S. companies founded in the past 50 years would not have existed or achieved their current scale without VC support.

• IS Ilya A. Strebulaev is the David S. Lobel Professor of Private Equity and a professor of finance at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is also the founder of the Stanford GSB Venture Capital Initiative and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
• AD Alex Dang is a venture builder and a digital strategy adviser. He was a partner at McKinsey and EY and launched numerous businesses at Amazon.

Partner Center

Associations of Internal Medicine Residency Milestone Ratings and Certification Examination Scores With Patient Outcomes

This study examines the association between physicians’ milestone ratings and certification examination scores and hospital outcomes for their patients.

Substances in Counterfeit Prescription Pills Seized by Law Enforcement, 2017-2022

This study examines substances identified during testing of counterfeit prescription pills seized by law enforcement in Rhode Island from 2017 to 2022.

Conveying Risks of Harm in Alzheimer Disease by Amyloid Lowering

This Viewpoint discusses how data gaps in published research impede clinicians’ ability to clearly discuss the risks and benefits of amyloid-lowering drugs for treating Alzheimer disease.

Fritz Kahn and the Centenary of The Doctor of the Future

This JAMA Arts and Medicine feature describes ways in which Fritz Kahn shared a prescient and nuanced vision of technology’s role in the patient-physician interaction, a topic of continued interest and relevance today, through his illustrations.

A Review of Thyroid Cancer

A review of thyroid cancer—reply, racial and ethnic disparities in all-cause and cause-specific mortality among us youth.

This cross-sectional study compares all-cause and cause-specific mortality trends and rates among youth from different races and ethnicities between 1999 and 2021.

• Audio: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality Among US Youth

Youth Experiencing Parental Death Due to Drug Poisoning and Firearm Violence in the US, 1999-2020

This cross-sectional study uses a demographic projection model and publicly available vital statistics data to estimate the national incidence of parental death due to drugs and firearms overall and by race and ethnicity.

Injury Prevention Science and Firearm Injury in Pediatric Health

Ai in medicine, one day, ai could mean better mental health for all.

This Medical News article is an interview with psychiatrist Vikram Patel, chair of the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

• Audio: Enhancing Global Mental Health Care With Digital Tools and AI for Scalable Interventions

Despite New Recommendations, the Debate Over Mammography Guidelines Continues

This Medical News story discusses new USPSTF recommendations about the timing of screening mammograms.

• Audio: USPSTF Recommendation: Screening for Breast Cancer
• USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Do Not Go Far Enough Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD JAMA Oncol

Multidrug-Resistant “Super Gonorrhea” Rallies Multipronged Effort

This Medical News article discusses approaches to slow the spread of antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae .

β-Blockers After Heart Attacks Might Not Lower Deaths for Some

Oral drug as effective as topical cream for male pattern baldness, deaths of despair surged among black people over past decade, prostate cancer cases might rise to 3 million globally by 2040, swapping salt for a substitute may lower deaths, reduce heart problems, encouraging exercise through games, money built long-term habits, meta-analysis: touch tied to improved mental, physical health, therapeutic psilocybin's adverse effects mostly resolved within 2 days, young patients without genetic risk have low chance of second breast cancer, smoking cessation after initial treatment failure with varenicline or nicotine replacement : a randomized clinical trial.

This sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial compares treatment strategies and dosages after abstinence from smoking was not achieved after 6 weeks of first-line therapies.

• Audio: Smoking Cessation After Initial Treatment Failure With Varenicline or Nicotine Replacement

Urgent Need for Regulatory Oversight of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue–Based Products

This Viewpoint discusses the death of a patient caused by unregulated biological products and efforts to encourage federal government oversight of such products.

My Digital Refuge

In this narrative medicine essay, a medical ethicist discusses the complexity of juggling the interests of members in online forums dedicated to rare diseases after being blocked upon disclosing her affiliation with a medical school, thus barring her from the support and information she needed to manage her daughter’s rare disease.

Acronymity : Henry T. Ricketts, MD, Contributing Editor

What is strep throat.

This JAMA Patient Page describes strep throat, its signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and potential complications.

Recurrent Gout and Serum Urate

Recurrent gout and serum urate—reply, health and the 2024 us election, race and ethnicity of reproductive-age females affected by us state abortion bans.

This study compares the race and ethnicity of reproductive-age females between states that implemented restrictive abortion policies after the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and states that did not.

The FDA and Gene Therapy for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

This Viewpoint examines the appropriateness of FDA accelerated approval of novel gene therapies to treat boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy following clinical trials with surrogate outcomes that did not demonstrate net benefits.

Women's Health

The women’s health initiative randomized trials and clinical practice : a review.

This review of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) summarizes the results of the 4 WHI clinical trials on menopausal hormone therapy, calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, and low-fat diet and their applications to current clinical practice.

Climate Change and Health

Climate change and mental health.

This JAMA Insights discusses the adverse effects of climate change on mental health and proposes solutions to help mitigate those effects.

Illness, Isolation, and the Poetry of Illumination

After the diagnosis, you find a moth.

• Editor's Note Illness, Isolation, and the Poetry of Illumination Rafael Campo, MD, MA JAMA

Table Data Errors

Incorrect degree, latest issue, latest from the uspstf.

• USPSTF Recommendation: Screening for Breast Cancer
• USPSTF Recommendation: Primary Care Interventions to Prevent Child Maltreatment
• USPSTF Recommendation: Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

What marijuana reclassification means for the United States

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple effects across the country.

FILE - Marijuana plants are seen at a secured growing facility in Washington County, N.Y., May 12, 2023. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple effects across the country. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink, File)

• Copy Link copied

Budtender Rey Cruz weighs cannabis for a customer at the Marijuana Paradise on Friday, April 19, 2024, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

Cloud 9 Cannabis employee Beau McQueen, right, helps a customer, Saturday, April 13, 2024, in Arlington, Wash. The shop is one of the first dispensaries to open under the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board’s social equity program, established in efforts to remedy some of the disproportionate effects marijuana prohibition had on communities of color. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is moving toward reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. The Justice Department proposal would recognize the medical uses of cannabis , but wouldn’t legalize it for recreational use.

The proposal would move marijuana from the “Schedule I” group to the less tightly regulated “Schedule III.”

So what does that mean, and what are the implications?

WHAT HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED? WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Technically, nothing yet. The proposal must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, and then undergo a public-comment period and review from an administrative judge, a potentially lengthy process.

Still, the switch is considered “paradigm-shifting, and it’s very exciting,” Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Human Services Department recommended the change.

“I can’t emphasize enough how big of news it is,” he said.

It came after President Joe Biden asked both HHS and the attorney general, who oversees the DEA, last year to review how marijuana was classified. Schedule I put it on par, legally, with heroin, LSD, quaaludes and ecstasy, among others.

Biden, a Democrat, supports legalizing medical marijuana for use “where appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday. “That is why it is important for this independent review to go through.”

Cloud 9 Cannabis employee Beau McQueen, right, helps a customer, Saturday, April 13, 2024, in Arlington, Wash. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)

IF MARIJUANA GETS RECLASSIFIED, WOULD IT LEGALIZE RECREATIONAL CANNABIS NATIONWIDE?

Ap audio: what marijuana reclassification means for the united states.

AP correspondent Haya Panjwani reports on a proposal for the federal government to reclassify marijuana in what would be a historic shift that could have wide ripple effects across the country.

No. Schedule III drugs — which include ketamine, anabolic steroids and some acetaminophen-codeine combinations — are still controlled substances.

They’re subject to various rules that allow for some medical uses, and for federal criminal prosecution of anyone who traffics in the drugs without permission.

No changes are expected to the medical marijuana programs now licensed in 38 states or the legal recreational cannabis markets in 23 states, but it’s unlikely they would meet the federal production, record-keeping, prescribing and other requirements for Schedule III drugs.

There haven’t been many federal prosecutions for simply possessing marijuana in recent years, even under marijuana’s current Schedule I status, but the reclassification wouldn’t have an immediate impact on people already in the criminal justice system.

“Put simple, this move from Schedule I to Schedule III is not getting people out of jail,” said David Culver, senior vice president of public affairs at the U.S. Cannabis Council.

But rescheduling in itself would have some impact, particularly on research and marijuana business taxes.

WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN FOR RESEARCH?

Because marijuana is on Schedule I, it’s been very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies that involve administering the drug. That has created something of a Catch-22: calls for more research, but barriers to doing it. (Scientists sometimes rely instead on people’s own reports of their marijuana use.)

Marijuana plants are seen at a secured growing facility in Washington County, N.Y., May 12, 2023. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink, File)

Schedule III drugs are easier to study, though the reclassification wouldn’t immediately reverse all barriers to study.

“It’s going to be really confusing for a long time,” said Ziva Cooper, director of the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids. “When the dust has settled, I don’t know how many years from now, research will be easier.”

Among the unknowns: whether researchers will be able to study marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries and how the federal Food and Drug Administration might oversee that.

Some researchers are optimistic.

“Reducing the schedule to schedule 3 will open up the door for us to be able to conduct research with human subjects with cannabis,” said Susan Ferguson, director of University of Washington’s Addictions, Drug & Alcohol Institute in Seattle.

WHAT ABOUT TAXES (AND BANKING)?

Under the federal tax code, businesses involved in “trafficking” in marijuana or any other Schedule I or II drug can’t deduct rent, payroll or various other expenses that other businesses can write off. (Yes, at least some cannabis businesses, particularly state-licensed ones, do pay taxes to the federal government, despite its prohibition on marijuana.) Industry groups say the tax rate often ends up at 70% or more.

The deduction rule doesn’t apply to Schedule III drugs, so the proposed change would cut cannabis companies’ taxes substantially.

They say it would treat them like other industries and help them compete against illegal competitors that are frustrating licensees and officials in places such as New York .

“You’re going to make these state-legal programs stronger,” says Adam Goers, of The Cannabist Company, formerly Columbia Care. He co-chairs a coalition of corporate and other players that’s pushing for rescheduling.

It could also mean more cannabis promotion and advertising if those costs could be deducted, according to Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Center.

Rescheduling wouldn’t directly affect another marijuana business problem: difficulty accessing banks, particularly for loans, because the federally regulated institutions are wary of the drug’s legal status. The industry has been looking instead to a measure called the SAFE Banking Act . It has repeatedly passed the House but stalled in the Senate.

ARE THERE CRITICS? WHAT DO THEY SAY?

Indeed, there are, including the national anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. President Kevin Sabet, a former Obama administration drug policy official, said the HHS recommendation “flies in the face of science, reeks of politics” and gives a regrettable nod to an industry “desperately looking for legitimacy.”

Some legalization advocates say rescheduling weed is too incremental. They want to keep the focus on removing it completely from the controlled substances list, which doesn’t include such items as alcohol or tobacco (they’re regulated, but that’s not the same).

Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said that simply reclassifying marijuana would be “perpetuating the existing divide between state and federal marijuana policies.” Kaliko Castille, a past president of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, said rescheduling just “re-brands prohibition,” rather than giving an all-clear to state licensees and putting a definitive close to decades of arrests that disproportionately pulled in people of color.

“Schedule III is going to leave it in this kind of amorphous, mucky middle where people are not going to understand the danger of it still being federally illegal,” he said.

This story has been corrected to show that Kaliko Castille is a past president, not president, of the Minority Cannabis Business Association and that Columbia Care is now The Cannabist Company.

___ Peltz reported from New York. Associated Press writers Colleen Long in Washington and Carla K. Johnson in Seattle contributed to this report.

Adis Summary of Research: Extended‑Release Viloxazine Compared with Atomoxetine for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

• Adis Summary of Research
• Published: 06 May 2024

Cite this article

• Yahiya Y. Syed 1  

In patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors like atomoxetine may show mild effectiveness in addressing both inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The relative efficacy of branded extended-release viloxazine (viloxazine ER) compared to generic atomoxetine remains unknown. This Adis Summary of Research summarizes the efficacy and tolerability of a voluntary switch from atomoxetine to viloxazine ER, prompted by adverse events or inadequate response, based on a retrospective chart review conducted in the USA. The switch improved ADHD symptoms and tolerability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Price MZ, Price RL. Extended-release viloxazine compared with atomoxetine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. CNS Drugs. 2023;37(7):655–60.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Springer Nature, Mairangi Bay, Private Bag 65901, Auckland, 0754, New Zealand

Yahiya Y. Syed

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yahiya Y. Syed .

Ethics declarations

The preparation of this review was not supported by any external funding.

Authorship and Conflict of Interest

Yahiya Y. Syed is a salaried employee of Adis International Ltd/Springer Nature, and declares no relevant conflicts of interest. All authors contributed to this article and are responsible for its content.

Ethics Approval, Consent to Participate, Consent to Publish, Availability of Data and Material, Code Availability

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Syed, Y.Y. Adis Summary of Research: Extended‑Release Viloxazine Compared with Atomoxetine for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Drugs Ther Perspect (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-024-01067-8

Download citation

Accepted : 04 April 2024

Published : 06 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-024-01067-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 29 April 2024

Inclusion of the severe and enduring anorexia nervosa phenotype in genetics research: a scoping review

• Sarah Ramsay 1 ,
• Kendra Allison 2 ,
• Heide S. Temples 2 ,
• Luigi Boccuto 1 &
• Sara M. Sarasua 1  

Journal of Eating Disorders volume  12 , Article number:  53 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

379 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Anorexia nervosa has one of the highest mortality rates of all mental illnesses. For those who survive, less than 70% fully recover, with many going on to develop a more severe and enduring phenotype. Research now suggests that genetics plays a role in the development and persistence of anorexia nervosa. Inclusion of participants with more severe and enduring illness in genetics studies of anorexia nervosa is critical.

The primary goal of this review was to assess the inclusion of participants meeting the criteria for the severe enduring anorexia nervosa phenotype in genetics research by (1) identifying the most widely used defining criteria for severe enduring anorexia nervosa and (2) performing a review of the genetics literature to assess the inclusion of participants meeting the identified criteria.

Searches of the genetics literature from 2012 to 2023 were performed in the PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases. Publications were selected per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The criteria used to define the severe and enduring anorexia nervosa phenotype were derived by how often they were used in the literature since 2017. The publications identified through the literature search were then assessed for inclusion of participants meeting these criteria.

most prevalent criteria used to define severe enduring anorexia nervosa in the literature were an illness duration of ≥ 7 years, lack of positive response to at least two previous evidence-based treatments, a body mass index meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 for extreme anorexia nervosa, and an assessment of psychological and/or behavioral severity indicating a significant impact on quality of life. There was a lack of consistent identification and inclusion of those meeting the criteria for severe enduring anorexia nervosa in the genetics literature.

This lack of consistent identification and inclusion of patients with severe enduring anorexia nervosa in genetics research has the potential to hamper the isolation of risk loci and the development of new, more effective treatment options for patients with anorexia nervosa.

Plain English Summary

Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious illness with a high death rate. Many of those with AN do not recover and have continuing severe psychological and physical symptoms that greatly impact their quality of life. Research has shown that genetics plays an important role, along with environment, in the development and persistence of AN. This review highlights the continued lack of consensus on defining criteria for severe and enduring AN in the literature and the continued focus on younger females with shorter illness durations in AN genetics research. Greater efforts are needed to include older participants with severe AN of longer duration in genetics research in hopes of developing more effective treatments for this underrepresented group.

Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a devastating illness with a high mortality rate. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) calculates whether those in a given study population are equally, more or less likely to die compared to a reference population [ 1 ]. With an estimated SMR between 5.9 and 15.9 (i.e., 6–16 times excess mortality), AN is considered one of the deadliest mental disorders [ 2 , 3 ].

Studies indicate that the overall incidence rate for AN has remained relatively stable (4% female lifetime-0.3% male lifetime) since the 1970s [ 2 , 4 ]. The symptomology and presentation of AN have evolved along cultural lines; however, it is not simply a manifestation of modern cultural and social pressures. Accounts of deliberate self-starvation date back to the beginning of written history [ 5 ].

Although the exact etiology of AN is still unclear, a substantial body of evidence indicates that genetics plays a considerable role [ 6 , 7 ]. Genetic studies dating from the late 20th century have shown that AN is highly familial. The lifetime risk of developing AN for female relatives of individuals with AN is 11 times greater than that for female relatives of individuals without AN [ 8 ]. Heritability (h 2 twin ) estimates from twin studies range from ∼ 48–74% [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. The large range in estimates may be due to the use of broader participant inclusion criteria in AN studies to increase study group size. Broadening the inclusion criteria results in a more heterogeneous sample and decreased heritability estimates, while narrowing the definition of AN yields higher and more consistent estimates [ 17 ].

Although recovery from AN is possible, for approximately 20% of affected individuals the condition takes on a more intractable phenotype [ 18 , 19 ]. While AN symptoms vary from person to person, it has been suggested that a unique severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) subtype exists; however, aligning on clear defining criteria has proved challenging [ 20 ].

Since the 1980s, a small number of literature reviews of varying breadth and depth have been conducted in attempts to better define SE-AN. The most comprehensive to date, a 2017 review by Broomfield and colleagues identified illness duration and previous unsuccessful treatment as the criteria most often used in the literature to define AN severity [ 21 ]. A 2018 editorial by Hay and Touz, which referenced the Broomfield review, expanded the suggested criterion to include significantly diminished quality of life and narrowed the duration criterion to a minimum of three years and the therapeutic intervention exposure criterion to at least two previous evidence-based treatments [ 22 ]. In a 2021 follow-up review, with the aim of defining a neuropsychological profile for SE-AN, Bloomfield et al. identified intelligence, set-shifting and decision-making as features warranting further attention and noted that additional data are needed to align on defining severity criteria [ 23 ]. In short, there continues to be a lack of consensus on how to best define SE-AN.

Psychiatric illness is often diagnosed in a binary manner; an individual is assessed as either having the illness or not. In reality, due to their complex nature, psychiatric illnesses are better defined on a continuum [ 24 , 25 ]. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) often use a binary case-control design. However, as Yang et al. [ 26 ] noted, with an equal population sample size, a quantitative trait (for example, symptom severity) association study will have greater power than a case-control association study. The difference is because in a case-control study, an individual with mild symptoms is not differentiated from one with severe symptoms. Relating this to AN, there would be no differentiation between an individual who met the DSM-5 criteria for mild illness, of short duration and who was responsive to first-line treatment, and an individual who met the extreme illness criteria, with a duration of over a decade and lack of positive response to multiple treatment modalities. Delineating participants based on illness severity when performing genetic data analysis of those with AN may improve the chances of identifying significant variants.

The potential value of defining more phenotypically similar groups based on quantitative phenotypes and comorbidities in genetic studies of psychiatric illness has been demonstrated in major depressive disorder (MDD), schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Individuals with more severe MDD symptoms have been found to have increased genetic risk for other psychiatric disorders [ 29 ], and polygenic risk scores (PRS) for schizophrenia correlate with symptom severity [ 28 ]. Genetic risk score (GRS), PRS and polygenic score (PGS) are the terms most often used in the literature when referring to values estimating an individual’s lifetime risk of developing a phenotype (disorder) based only on their genetics [ 31 ]. The scores are generated by combining the number of risk alleles at all the risk variants in an individual’s genome. Disease-associated risk variants are based on the latest and most comprehensive GWAS for the disorder at the time of the analysis.

Studies delineating and comparing subgroups of individuals with AN based on defined quantitative criteria may result in the discovery of rare variants associated with symptom severity, and individuals manifesting a more severe phenotype may be more likely to show higher heritability estimates and thus represent a subgroup of patients for which genetics findings may be beneficial. However, this hypothesis cannot be adequately tested to the rigorous standards required without a more precise definition of what constitutes a severe and enduring phenotype, and greater attention given to specifically identifying and including this group in genetic studies [ 32 ].

The aim of this review is to first, as an extension of the Broomfield et al. review [ 21 ], identify the criteria most widely used to describe the phenotypic severity of AN by including articles published since 2017 and, second, evaluate the genetics literature for inclusion of individuals meeting these criteria.

Delineating criteria for the severe and enduring anorexia nervosa phenotype

To better identify and delineate research participants manifesting a severe and enduring phenotype in the genetics literature, it was necessary to discern the most often used defining criteria for this subgroup of AN. The terms Anorexia Nervosa AND severe AND (Enduring OR Chronic) were used, with no year limit, to search titles and abstracts in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Articles were also limited to human subjects.

One of the articles identified was an extensive review by Broomfield et al. of how the literature labeled and defined AN severity up to 2017 [ 21 ]. The current search was limited to articles published after the Broomfield 2017 review to focus on the most recent literature. The references were not required to be attempting to empirically define a severe or enduring anorexia nervosa phenotype. The goal was to determine how those with a longer lasting and more severe clinical presentation are currently referred to in the literature. After removing commentaries on other references, clarifications, and updates from previous studies with the same authors and criteria, redundant references, and those not referring to a severe or enduring anorexia nervosa phenotype, 37 publications remained. Of these 37 publications, there were 22 research papers (6 clinical trials, 16 studies), 4 case reports, 6 expert panel/position papers/or opinion/editorial papers, 2 literature reviews and 3 general reviews. These references are listed in Table  1 , along with a book chapter [ 33 ] identified through reviewing the references of the selected papers, that was not included in the Broomfield 2017 review, bringing the total publications included to 38. The mean age, mean BMI, duration of illness in years, and history of previous treatment, as well as any other measures of illness severity, were extracted from the articles and are shown in Table  1 . A second reviewer, using the RANBETWEEN function in Microsoft Excel, selected 10% of the articles at random from Table  1 . to review for meeting inclusion criteria and accuracy of the data extracted.

Articles were reviewed to determine which criteria are used most often in the literature in regard to the severe enduring phenotype. Specifically, articles with a central purpose of better defining a severe and or enduring/chronic AN phenotype or the need for better treatment options (for example [ 34 , 35 ]), and articles including case studies or participants in one or more study groups defined as having a severe and or enduring/chronic AN phenotype (for example [ 36 , 37 ]) were included. The tabulation from the Broomfield review was combined with the current total. Given that the four Dalton articles referenced the same data, they were counted as only one reference. The results are outlined in Fig.  1 .

Number of references from Table  1 representing the specific duration of illness, number of previous unsuccessful treatments and body mass index (BMI) subgroups indicated either in defining severe and enduring anorexia nervosa or as inclusion criteria for participants. The totals indicated include both the references from the 2017 Broomfield review [ 21 ] and the current work

Literature review: inclusion of participants meeting the severe and enduring AN phenotype in genetics research

The search outlined in this section followed the process depicted in the PRISMA flow diagram [ 38 ] in Fig.  2 , which captures the literature selection flow. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist was utilized [ 39 ]. The goal was to assess whether participants meeting the criteria identified as the most widely used to define a severe and enduring phenotype are being included in genetics research, and, if included, whether these participants were assessed as an independent group.

PRISMA flow diagram for the literature search

The terms Anorexia Nervosa AND (genetic OR gene OR hereditary) in titles and abstracts were used for the following searches. Articles were limited to human subjects, and review articles were excluded. The goal was to be as inclusive as possible in the initial searches of each database. The search was limited to the last decade of published literature to assess current practices in genetics research. This span of time encompasses the five years leading up to and following the identification of the first genome wide significant locus for AN [ 40 ] and the publication of Broomfield et al., both of which were published in 2017. The inclusion dates were as follows: PubMed, 1-Jan-2012 to 6-Oct-2023 (date of search); PsycINFO, 1-Jan-2012 to 10-Oct-2023 (date of search); and Web of Science, 1-Jan-2012 to 12-Oct-2023 (date of search).

Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO and Web of Science conducted with the search criteria resulted in 240, 206 and 235 hits, respectively. Titles and keywords were reviewed, and 277 articles were eliminated for redundancy (see “identification” in Fig.  2 ). During the first screening, the abstracts for the remaining 404 were reviewed, and 211 were eliminated for the reasons depicted in the PRISMA diagram (“Records selected for Review 1”). The remaining 193 publications progressed to the second screening.

In the second screening, noted as “Records selected for Review 2” in the PRISMA diagram, the methods sections of the remaining 193 articles were reviewed for details on age, psychological assessments, anorexia subtype, duration of illness, prior treatment history, and other indications of disease severity. Studies did not need to specifically call out a subgroup of participants as being severe and or enduring; however, those not including participant data for at least three of the following four criteria were eliminated because they did not provide adequate information for the assessment of participant phenotype severity and intractability: (1) duration of illness; (2) body mass index (BMI); (3) prior treatment history; and (4) severity as measured by one or more clinical, social, or psychological scales. This resulted in the elimination of an additional 115 articles. A total of 78 articles were ultimately included in the information extraction process; the results are presented in Table  2 .

The data were extracted by reviewing both the methods and results sections of each paper for the following participant data: (1) mean duration of illness in years; (2) mean BMI in kg/m 2 ; (3) prior treatment history; (4) and severity as measured by one or more clinical, social, or psychological scales. Participant gender, mean age, and groups of eating disorders included in the studies (i.e., AN-restricting, AN-binge purge, bulimia, binge eating) were also extracted. A second reviewer, using the RANBETWEEN function in Microsoft Excel, selected 10% of the articles at random from Table  2 to review for meeting inclusion criteria and accuracy of the data extracted.

Defining severe enduring anorexia nervosa in the research literature

A review of the literature revealed that the terms severe, chronic, and enduring identified by Broomfield et al., in 2017 [ 21 ] continue to be widely used to label the more intractable AN phenotype. How these labels are defined in the literature, when they are defined, continues to vary greatly. The age of study participants, BMI, duration of illness, and previous treatment history were extracted from each reference and are recorded in Table  1 .

The primary inclusion criteria presented in the articles reviewed were as follows:

The Broomfield review [ 21 ] identified duration as the primary criterion used to define the severe and enduring AN phenotype, and this continues to be true. Several articles reviewed included duration of illness as a criterion for inclusion in their study or clearly delineated a subgroup using duration as one criterion. The stringency of how duration was measured varied.

In their audit of care received by patients with “early stage” versus “severe and enduring” AN, Ambwani et al. [ 36 ] defined a duration of < 3 years for early stage and ≥7 years for severe and enduring AN, as recommended by Robinson et al. and Touyz et al. [ 41 , 42 ]. This was also the case for Calugi et al. [ 43 ], who used ≥7 years in their study of cognitive behavioral therapy effectiveness. The patient described in the case study by Voderholzer et al. [ 44 ] had AN for seven years. In the four papers by Dalton et al. studying the impact of transcranial magnetic stimulation on severe and enduring AN, the duration inclusion criterion for study participation was ≥3 years of AN symptoms [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Whereas Knyahnytska et al. [ 49 ] included a duration of > 5 years as a criterion for treatment resistance in their insula H-coil transcranial stimulation therapy study. In the selection of a subset of participants from the Anorexia Nervosa Genetics Initiative (ANGI) to include in their assessment of the polygenic association of severity and long-term outcome in AN, Johansson et al. [ 50 ] included in their criteria for the severe enduring subtype a ≥ 5 year follow-up time, defined by the authors as years between initial registration and ANGI recruitment. Finally, in two of the three studies evaluating the effectiveness of deep brain stimulation, an illness duration of ≥ 10 years was required for participant inclusion [ 51 , 52 ], with the third requiring > 7 years [ 53 ]. Case study, clinical trial and study participants included in groups indicated as manifesting a severe and enduring phenotype tended to have illness of longer duration. For example, participants in the Calugi et al. [ 43 ] study had a mean duration of 12.3(4.7 SD) years, and the three case study subjects had illness durations of 7 [ 44 ], 11 [ 54 ], 25 [ 55 ], and 26 [ 37 ] years.

Position papers, commentaries, and reviews also varied greatly in defining duration requirements. For example, in their German language case study on palliative care for severe AN, Westermair et al. [ 56 ] proposed a long duration of illness, e.g., 10 years, as a criterion, whereas Hay and Touyz [ 22 ] and Herpetz-Dahlmann [ 57 ] used a duration of > 3 years. Other authors fell between the two extremes; Bianchi et al. [ 58 ] defined severe and enduring AN participants as those who had the disorder for six years or more, and Marzola et al. [ 59 ] used a seven-year demarcation. However, these two papers also proposed that duration should not be used alone when defining AN severity. The usefulness of duration as a criterion was also questioned by Wildes et al. [ 60 ]. In an attempt to define the severe and enduring phenotype empirically, Wildes found no evidence for a chronic subgroup of AN, instead proposing that this group may be better classified on the basis of impact on quality of life and severity of injurious behaviors. As indicated in Fig.  1 , a duration of 7 or more years was used most frequently, followed by 10 years.

Body mass index (BMI):

The DSM-5 defines four levels of AN severity: mild, BMI greater than 17 kg/m 2 ; moderate, BMI of 16–16.99 kg/m 2 ; severe, BMI of 15–15.99 kg/m 2 ; and extreme, BMI of less than 15 kg/m 2 [ 61 ]. Once again, the literature indicates a wide range of BMIs in articles attempting to define severe and enduring AN and/or for participation in studies targeting this group of individuals. The two studies of deep brain stimulation with duration criteria of ≥ 10 years for participation also had BMI requirements falling into the DSM extreme category [ 51 , 52 ]. Deep brain stimulation involves a high degree of risk, and the authors delineated that only individuals with the most severe cases should be included. Similar to duration of illness, participants included in groups indicated as manifesting a severe and enduring phenotype in case studies, clinical trials and studies, tended to have substantially lower BMIs than required per the inclusion criteria. For example, participants in the Bemer et al. bone mineral density (BMD) study had a mean BMI of 12.60 ± 1.60 kg/m 2 , which was well below the < 16 kg/m 2 criteria [ 62 ].

Notably, several studies included a low weight cutoff for participation. For example, in their transcranial magnetic stimulation studies, Dalton et al. [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] required a BMI > 14 kg/m 2 for participation. The reason provided in the study protocol for the low weight cutoff was “safety precaution” [ 63 ]. The deep brain stimulation studies conducted by Park et al. [ 64 ] required that participants be severely underweight but with a low-weight BMI criterion of > 13 kg/m 2 . Although reasons were not given for the low weight cutoff, they stated that participants needed to have a BMI > 13 kg/m 2 for surgery, which is understandable given its invasive nature.

Again, as with duration of illness, the literature suggests that BMI should not be used as the sole determinant of severity in AN. In their editorial on the challenges of defining severe and enduring AN, Hay and Touyz [ 22 ] recognized the utility of the DSM-5 BMI severity categories but also noted that for those with unremitting AN for a decade or more, having a BMI above the DSM severe range is still associated with marked morbidity.

Psychological assessment:

All the studies reviewed included an assessment of symptoms such as psychological stress, disordered eating, depression, anxiety, obsessiveness, and quality of life. For example, Wildes et al. [ 60 ], used the Research and Development Corporation (RAND) 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36) to measure health-related quality of life, and found that these scores better classified AN subgroups than BMI and duration of illness. A score of ≤45 on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) found in the DSM-4, which assesses the severity of mental illness [ 65 ], was used by Oudijn et al. [ 51 ] for inclusion in their deep brain stimulation studies. A plethora of tools was used in assessing eating disorder pathology, with the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) [ 66 ] and/or various iterations of the EDE-Q being the most prevalent.

Treatment response:

Lack of positive response to prior treatment, variously described as treatment resistance, treatment refractoriness, and failure to respond, was also included in assessing AN severity in several of the articles. The number and type of previous treatments required for inclusion in studies varied. For inclusion in deep brain stimulation studies, Park et al. [ 67 ] required a lack of positive response to ≥2 “typical modes” of treatment, as did Oudijn et al. [ 51 ]. The participant inclusion criteria used by Dalton et al. [ 48 ] for transcranial stimulation studies included the need to have completed at least one “previous course of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence” recommended “specialist psychotherapy or specialist day-patient or inpatient treatment”. The clearest classification criterion for treatment resistance was proposed by Hay and Touyz et al. [ 68 ]: “exposure to at least two evidence-based treatments delivered by an appropriate clinician or treatment facility together with a diagnostic assessment and formulation that incorporates an assessment of the person’s eating disorder health literacy with an assessment of the person’s stage of change”, which was referenced in the reviews of treatment options for those with severe enduring AN by Zhu et al. and Wonderlich et al. [ 20 , 69 ]. In contrast, Smith and Woodside [ 70 ] defined treatment resistance as “patients with two or more incomplete inpatient admissions and no complete admissions”. Emphasis was placed on patients failing to complete treatment rather than the treatment failing to help patients, although the authors did note that approximately 10% of patients treated at their inpatient facility were “unable to benefit”. As indicated in Fig.  1 , the criterion of two or more treatment attempts was most frequently used.

In summary, the literature indicates that a combination of assessments and criteria, including an illness duration of ≥ 7 years, lack of positive response to at least two previous evidence-based treatments, a BMI meeting the DSM-5 for extreme AN, and an assessment of psychological and/or behavioral severity indicating a significant impact on quality of life, were the most prevalent means of defining the severe and enduring AN phenotype. As the DSM-5 includes clear definitions of severe and extreme BMI (15–15.99 kg/m 2 and < 15 kg/m 2 , respectively), the criteria for severe BMI were also used in assessing the genetics literature in the following section.

Inclusion of participants meeting severe enduring anorexia nervosa-defining criteria in studies of anorexia nervosa genetics

The 78 articles identified as meeting the search criteria defined in the methods section were assessed for whether the following inclusion criteria were used and how they were defined:

Duration of illness,

Prior treatment history,

Severity as measured by one or more clinical, social, or psychological scales.

As mentioned previously, neither the statistical strength of the studies nor the study outcomes were assessed, as the purpose was to determine whether genetic studies included those meeting the severe and enduring phenotype criteria defined in the first aim through assessing prevalence of use in the literature. The studies consisted of Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) as well as analyses of polymorphisms, expression, and gene methylation, including but not limited to the leptin ( LEP ) and the leptin receptor ( LEPR ) genes, the fat mass and obesity-associated gene ( FTO ), and the oxytocin receptor ( OXTR ) gene [ 16 , 71 , 72 , 73 ]. The gender of the study participants was also recorded where reported (Table  2 ).

Most of the 78 articles, including those specifically stating that the study was of severe AN, did not include criteria defined in the first aim. Most notably, only one article specifically stated that participants included had at least one prior treatment attempt [ 50 ].

Of the 71 studies reporting mean BMI, the mean BMI for all groups was 15.73 kg/m 2 (SD 1.48). For 15 studies (21%), the mean BMI was > 17 kg/m 2 (mild DSM-5). Sixteen studies (22%) had a mean BMI of 16–16.99 kg/m 2 (moderate DSM-5). Twenty-three studies (32%) had a mean BMI of ≤15.99 kg/m 2 (severe DSM-5), and 17 studies (21.8%) included at least one group with a mean BMI of ≤15 kg/m 2 , required to meet the DSM-5 definition of extreme AN. Only one study included a lifetime minimum BMI of ≤15 kg/m 2 as an inclusion criterion [ 74 ].

The duration of illness and or minimum duration required for inclusion in studies were reported for 23 (29%) of the 78 articles. Of those 23 studies, 3 (13%) had participants with a mean duration of illness ≤ 3 years, 12 (52%) had a mean of 3.1–6.99 years, and 6 (26%) had a mean of ≥ 7 years. Five of the 23 studies required a duration of illness ≥3 years as a participant inclusion criterion. None of the articles identified required duration of illness ≥7 years as an inclusion criterion.

Assessment of psychological stress, disordered eating, depression, anxiety, obsessiveness, and quality of life was another facet of defining the severity of AN in the studies evaluated. Across the 54 studies identifying defined assessment modalities, 38 different tools, checklists and guidelines were used in various combinations, including the following: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), Clinical Global Impression anxiety scale (CGI), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory form (STAI); depression: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); alexithymia: Toronto Alexithymia Score (TAS); obsessive-compulsive and impulsive symptoms: Young-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms (YBC-EDS), Leyton Obsessional Inventory-Child Version (LOI-CV); Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS); and perfectionism: Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS). Numerous eating disorder assessment tools, including the Eating Disorders Inventory (EDI), Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q), Eating Attitudes Test (EAT), and the Structured Interview for Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa (SIAB) were also used. Table  3 shows a list of tools and how often they were used.

Historically, the focus of AN research has been on teens and young adults. The current assessment found that, of the 71 studies in which the mean age was reported or could be calculated, the mean of the mean ages reported for study participants was 20.9 (4.26 SD) years. Furthermore, the reported mean age of study participants in 36 (51%) of the 71 studies was ≤19.9 years, 21 (30%) had a mean age of 20-24.9 years, 14 (20%) had a mean age of 25-29.9 years, and only one study had an overall group mean age of ≥ 30 years, although eight studies included individual groups with means ≥ 30 years. Figure  3 provides a summary of the BMI, age and duration findings discussed above.

Number of articles in Table  1 representing the body mass index (BMI), age and duration subgroups indicated. NR = Not reported. A. BMI: 71 of the 78 articles reported BMI (kg/m 2 ), 17 of those 71 had participant mean BMI ≤ 15; Age: 72 of the 78 articles reported age, of those 72, one had a mean participant age over 30 years; Duration: 23 of the 78 articles included duration, of those 23, 6 had participant mean illness duration of ≥ 7 years

Incidence rates for AN are reported to be ten times lower in males, although this is considered an underestimation due to underreporting and underdetection [ 2 ]. Only 16 (20%) of the 78 studies included male participants.

Based on the min/max and standard deviations of the mean provided for duration of illness and BMI, it was clear that many of the articles included subsets of individuals meeting the criteria noted herein for severe and enduring AN. However, as data for those specific individuals were often not delineated, it was not possible to determine how the study conclusions may have differed for said subgroups. For example, the mean duration of illness reported by Hernández et al. [ 75 ] for the AN restricting type (AN-R) subgroup was 4.03 (4.44 SD) years, indicating that at least some of the participants met the duration criteria.

Nevertheless, there were examples of results being assessed against some measures of severity, including duration. The Booij et al. study [ 76 ] AN-R group participant duration of illness was 54.9 (30 SD) months; range: 12–84. They specifically assessed methylation against the cumulative duration of illness and observed associations between duration and methylation levels at 142 probes. The mean duration of illness in the AN-R group in the Steiger et al. study [ 77 ] was 96.00 ± 98.91 (12–456) months. They also assessed duration and found an association between chronicity of illness and methylation status at 64 probes mapping to 55 genes.

Other authors evaluated genetic correlation with the severity of various psychological assessments including quality of life, depression, food behaviors, anxiety, and obsessiveness [ 75 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ]. For example, Acevedo and colleagues found a correlation between specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the oxytocin receptor gene ( OXTR ), and increased severity of eating disorder symptoms in those with AN [ 78 ]. A polymorphism in the promotor region of the serotonin transporter gene ( 5-HTTLPR ), previously associated with stress and depression [ 91 ], may impact depression and long-term outcomes in those with AN [ 79 ]. Research also suggests a possible correlation between specific haplotypes of the DHEA-producing enzyme cytochrome P450 CYP17A [ 81 ] and the C861 allele of the serotonin receptor 1Dβ gene ( HTR1B ) and severity of anxiety in those with AN.

An example of potential utility in assessing the severe and enduring AN phenotype and the need for larger studies and more funding is the 2022 study by Johansson et al. [ 50 ] evaluating polygenic association with AN severity and long-term outcomes. Here, the authors delineated severe and enduring AN criteria, including duration of illness, clinical impairment, BMI, and having undergone at least one previous treatment attempt. They also specified requirements for the AN subtype, thereby narrowing the population. The study, which included 2843 participants followed for up to 16 years (mean: 5.3 years), provided evidence supporting the possible clinical utility of PGSs for assessing eating disorder risk but also noted the need for larger studies and sample sizes to increase statistical power.

In summary, based on the literature reviewed, genetic studies of AN continue to focus largely, but not exclusively, on younger female participants with shorter durations of illness. These findings are not surprising given that the majority of those diagnosed with AN are female, the lack of clearly defined criteria for severe and enduring AN and the need for large numbers of participants to assess significance in genetics research.

Attempts to provide criteria for labeling those with severe mental illness as chronic or treatment-resistant need to be executed with care, as has been critically reviewed for illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression [ 92 , 93 ]. Care should also be taken when defining criteria for severity of AN, which has a higher mortality rate than depression or schizophrenia [ 94 ]. However, not defining AN severity more clearly and not focusing on a more severe and enduring phenotype in research may decrease the likelihood of identifying the possible underlying biological etiology of AN. As noted by Wonderlich et al. [ 20 ] and responding commentaries by Dalle Grave [ 95 ], Wildes [ 96 ], and McIntosh [ 97 ], a lack of consensus and studies specifically targeting those with severe and enduring AN has resulted in patients being subjected to repetitive employment of largely ineffective treatment strategies resulting in a sense of hopelessness and shame and increasing the risk of suicide [ 98 ]. This review of the literature found that a duration of illness ≥7 years and an unsuccessful response to previous evidence-based treatment were the most common inclusion criteria employed, as were various measures of psychological and physical severity.

AN was once thought to be primarily caused by dysfunctional family dynamics and social and cultural pressures [ 99 ]. We now have evidence that genetics plays a significant role in its etiology. In recent years, there has been an evidence-based push to reconceptualize AN as a metabopsychiatric disorder [ 7 ]. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) continues to provide data on the functioning of the brains of those with AN [ 100 ]. The use of large-scale GWAS and genome-wide methylation studies has been gradually revealing the interplay between genetics and environment in AN etiology and persistence, and genetic correlations with other psychiatric disorders [ 16 , 101 , 102 ]. These are all positive advances; however, as evidenced by the individuals included in these studies, female teens and young adults with shorter durations of illness appear to be the primary participants.

Historically, males have been underrepresented in AN research [ 103 ]. Until 2013, the DSM listed amenorrhea as a criterion for AN, thereby reinforcing the notion that AN affects only females [ 61 ]. According to the literature reviewed, males continue to be underrepresented in AN research.

The challenge of recruiting participants for inclusion in large-scale genetic studies of AN is significant. Of the indicated criteria, the most challenging for researchers to assess is the lack of response to prior evidence-based treatment. Most of the treatments described as evidence-based are not administered according to a defined protocol, making retrospective assessment nearly impossible. Furthermore, those with more severe symptoms of longer duration are often treated in a plethora of settings over many years.

For many of the publications, the data indicate that there were participants meeting the criteria defined in the first aim. However, as these individuals were not assessed as a group, it was not possible to determine whether outcomes for this subset may have differed from those with a less severe presentation. The purpose of the publications that either did not perform these assessments or did not report them in their studies was not to delineate this level of detail, so their absence is understandable. One of the reasons for this may be the small number of individuals meeting the criteria for severe and enduring AN, coupled with the need for a large enough “n” to provide any meaningful statistical assessment, which in turn points back to the need for larger studies and additional funding.

Nevertheless, several studies made concerted efforts to focus on a defined severe and enduring phenotype. For example, Kushima et al. [ 74 ] limited their study cohort to those reporting a lifetime lowest BMI < 15 kg/m 2 , with the median for included participants reported as 11.3 kg/m 2 , and a mean age of 37.9 years. The authors specifically stated that they focused on the “severe subgroup of patients because patients with severe symptoms or treatment-resistance are more likely to carry rare deleterious variants of large effect”, citing a schizophrenia study [ 104 ] as support.

The ultimate goal of AN research is to identify contributing factors to the manifestation and intractability of the disease and, in turn, develop superior evidence-based treatments tailored to the patient. Will next generation sequencing gene panels help in the diagnosis of AN [ 105 ]? Kushima et al. [ 74 ] suggested that rare copy number variants associated with neurodevelopmental disorders may correlate with more severe eating disorder subtypes. Is it possible to identify those at higher risk of developing severe and enduring illness earlier and in turn treat those patients based on their specific genetic and environmental circumstances instead of employing generic therapy that may work for most patients with eating disorders but is less effective for those in this cohort? Can artificial intelligence be employed to better identify risk in individuals with AN [ 106 ]? Will we one day regularly employ genetic testing and pharmacogenetics in treating mental illness, including AN [ 107 , 108 ]? Several international projects, including ANGI and the Comprehensive Risk Evaluation for Anorexia Nervosa in Twins (CREAT) are attempting to answer these questions and many more [ 109 , 110 ]. Although these projects do not focus specifically on the severe and enduring phenotype, the availability of in-depth participant health and demographic information paired with genetic analysis should allow for studies of these subsets.

The criteria for evaluating the severity and intractability of AN are evolving, as is the understanding of the disorder. The purpose of a scoping review is to map the literature on an evolving topic and to identify gaps. As such, unlike a systematic review, this review does not attempt to assess the quality of the research conducted, but rather the inclusiveness of study participants. The authors do not attempt to define the severe and enduring phenotype or suggest how the research community should create consensus on the definition. However, by assessing the current literature, we highlight the gaps between the intent to focus on those with severe and enduring AN and the inclusion of this group in published research.

Conclusion and future directions

In conclusion, this review provides an overview of the currently used criteria employed by the research community to define the severity of AN and assesses the last decade of genetics research for the inclusion of study participants meeting these criteria. We found that the following combination of assessments and criteria was used most often in the literature to define AN severity and intractability:

Illness duration of ≥ 7 years.

lack of positive response to at least two previous evidence-based treatments.

A BMI meeting the DSM-5 criteria for extreme AN.

An assessment of psychological and/or behavioral severity indicating a significant impact on quality of life.

We also found, especially in recent years, that there has been an attempt to better define severe and enduring AN in hopes of identifying patients, tailoring treatment, and improving outcomes. However, although a small subset of genetic studies reviewed specifically attempted to focus on a severe and enduring phenotype, there was a lack of aligned defining criteria. Furthermore, there is a continued focus on younger females with shorter disease durations.

Those with AN are often stigmatized, and their shame is amplified by the perception that AN is voluntary or even a lifestyle choice [ 111 , 112 , 113 ]. Those with severe and long-lasting illness are less likely to respond to currently available treatment modalities and have higher levels of mortality [ 20 ]. However, they also represent a subgroup of individuals for which genetic findings may be especially helpful [ 74 ]. Therefore, it is suggested that future genetics studies make a concerted effort to include older participants, those with longer illness durations, and those whose quality of life is most significantly impacted. It is also critically important that more objective, empirically based techniques, such as biomarker and brain structure and function analysis, be developed to more definitively classify the severe and enduring phenotype, which to this point has primarily been categorized through subjective means [ 32 , 60 , 96 , 114 ]. There has been considerable effort in recent years to expand the definition of AN in hopes of being more inclusive and identifying those who may benefit from treatment. However, although expansion has increased the sample size for genetic studies, it could be that focusing on those with longer-lasting and more severe symptomology, even though this is a much smaller group of those with AN, would provide a better chance of identifying the genetic etiology of the disorder. Recent advances have left us far better equipped to make significant progress in developing evidence-based treatments for those with severe and enduring AN. However, these advances require the inclusion of this subgroup in both research and practice.

Limitations

One limitation of the current review is that due to the wide range of similar terminology used to refer to a severe and enduring AN phenotype in the published literature, the searches performed may have left out pertinent articles and viewpoints. Furthermore, although comprehensive for the three electronic databases, the literature search did not include gray literature; thus, information from sources such as dissertations may have been missed.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Kelsey JL. Observational epidemiology. In: Heggenhougen HK, editor. International Encyclopedia of Public Health. Oxford: Academic; 2008. pp. 609–20.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

van Eeden AE, van Hoeken D, Hoek HW. Incidence, prevalence and mortality of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2021;34(6):515–24.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

van Hoeken D, Hoek HW. Review of the burden of eating disorders: mortality, disability, costs, quality of life, and family burden. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2020;33(6):521–7.

Smink FRE, van Hoeken D, Hoek HW. Epidemiology of eating disorders: incidence, prevalence and mortality rates. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012;14(4):406–14.

Bemporad JR. Self-starvation through the ages: reflections on the pre-history of anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 1996;19(3):217–37.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

de Jorge Martínez C, Rukh G, Williams MJ, Gaudio S, Brooks S, Schiöth HB. Genetics of anorexia nervosa: an overview of genome-wide association studies and emerging biological links. J Genet Genomics. 2022;49(1):1–12.

Watson HJ, Yilmaz Z, Thornton LM, Hübel C, Coleman JRI, Gaspar HA, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies eight risk loci and implicates metabo-psychiatric origins for anorexia nervosa. Nat Genet. 2019;51(8):1207–14.

Lilenfeld LR, Kaye WH, Greeno CG, Merikangas KR, Plotnicov K, Pollice C, et al. A controlled family study of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa: psychiatric disorders in first-degree relatives and effects of proband comorbidity. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55(7):603–10.

Holland A, Hall A, Murray R, Russell G, Crisp A. Anorexia nervosa: a study of 34 twin pairs and one set of triplets. Br J Psychiatry. 1984;145(4):414–9.

Holland AJ, Sicotte N, Treasure J. Anorexia nervosa: evidence for a genetic basis. J Psychosom Res. 1988;32(6):561–71.

Klump KL, Miller K, Keel P, McGue M, Iacono W. Genetic and environmental influences on anorexia nervosa syndromes in a population–based twin sample. Psychol Med. 2001;31(4):737–40.

Kortegaard LS, Hoerder K, Joergensen J, Gillberg C, Kyvik KO. A preliminary population-based twin study of self-reported eating disorder. Psychol Med. 2001;31(2):361–5.

Wade TD, Bulik CM, Neale M, Kendler KS. Anorexia nervosa and major depression: shared genetic and environmental risk factors. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(3):469–71.

Walters EE, Kendler KS. Anorexia nervosa and anorexic-like syndromes in a population-based female twin sample. Am J Psychiatry. 1995.

Bulik CM, Sullivan PF, Tozzi F, Furberg H, Lichtenstein P, Pedersen NL. Prevalence, heritability, and prospective risk factors for anorexia nervosa. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(3):305–12.

Yilmaz Z, Hardaway JA, Bulik CM. Genetics and epigenetics of Eating disorders. Adv Genomics Genet. 2015;5:131–50.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dellava JE, Thornton LM, Lichtenstein P, Pedersen NL, Bulik CM. Impact of broadening definitions of anorexia nervosa on sample characteristics. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45(5):691–8.

Eddy KT, Tabri N, Thomas JJ, Murray HB, Keshaviah A, Hastings E, et al. Recovery from anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa at 22-year follow-up. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78(2):0.

Article   Google Scholar  

Steinhausen H-C. The outcome of anorexia nervosa in the 20th century. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(8):1284–93.

Wonderlich SA, Bulik CM, Schmidt U, Steiger H, Hoek HW. Severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: update and observations about the current clinical reality. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(8):1303–12.

Broomfield C, Stedal K, Touyz S, Rhodes P. Labeling and defining severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and critical analysis. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;50(6):611–23.

Hay P, Touyz S. Classification challenges in the field of eating disorders: can severe and enduring anorexia nervosa be better defined? J Eat Disord. 2018;6:41.

Broomfield C, Stedal K, Touyz S. The Neuropsychological Profile of severe and Enduring Anorexia Nervosa: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2021;12:708536.

Keyes CL, Dhingra SS, Simoes EJ. Change in level of positive mental health as a predictor of future risk of mental illness. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(12):2366–71.

Tomczyk S, Schlick S, Gansler T, McLaren T, Muehlan H, Peter LJ, et al. Continuum beliefs of mental illness: a systematic review of measures. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2023;58(1):1–16.

Yang J, Wray NR, Visscher PM. Comparing apples and oranges: equating the power of case-control and quantitative trait association studies. Genet Epidemiol. 2010;34(3):254–7.

Strom NI, Grove J, Meier SM, Bækvad-Hansen M, Becker Nissen J, Damm Als T, et al. Polygenic heterogeneity across obsessive-compulsive disorder subgroups defined by a comorbid diagnosis. Front Genet. 2021;12:711624.

Ahangari M, Bustamante D, Kirkpatrick R, Nguyen TH, Verrelli BC, Fanous A, et al. Relationship between polygenic risk scores and symptom dimensions of schizophrenia and schizotypy in multiplex families with schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 2023;223(1):301–8.

Verduijn J, Milaneschi Y, Peyrot WJ, Hottenga JJ, Abdellaoui A, de Geus EJC, et al. Using clinical characteristics to identify which patients with Major Depressive Disorder have a higher genetic load for Three Psychiatric disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2017;81(4):316–24.

Antaki D, Guevara J, Maihofer AX, Klein M, Gujral M, Grove J, et al. A phenotypic spectrum of autism is attributable to the combined effects of rare variants, polygenic risk and sex. Nat Genet. 2022;54(9):1284–92.

Wand H, Lambert SA, Tamburro C, Iacocca MA, O’Sullivan JW, Sillari C, et al. Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies. Nature. 2021;591(7849):211–9.

Hübel C, Leppä V, Breen G, Bulik CM. Rigor and reproducibility in genetic research on eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord. 2018;51(7):593–607.

Sun B, Li D, Liu W, Zhan S, Pan Y, Zhang X. Surgical treatments for Anorexia Nervosa. In: Sun B, Salles AD, editors. Neurosurgical treatments for Psychiatric disorders. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2015. pp. 175–87.

Broomfield C, Noetel M, Stedal K, Hay P, Touyz S. Establishing consensus for labeling and defining the later stage of anorexia nervosa: a Delphi study. Int J Eat Disord. 2021;54(10):1865–74.

Raykos BC, Erceg-Hurn DM, McEvoy PM, Fursland A, Waller G. Severe and enduring anorexia nervosa? Illness severity and duration are unrelated to outcomes from cognitive behaviour therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018;86(8):702–9.

Ambwani S, Cardi V, Albano G, Cao L, Crosby RD, Macdonald P, et al. A multicenter audit of outpatient care for adult anorexia nervosa: Symptom trajectory, service use, and evidence in support of early stage versus severe and enduring classification. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(8):1337–48.

Fernandes Arroteia I, Husch A, Baniasadi M, Hertel F. Impressive weight gain after deep brain stimulation of nucleus accumbens in treatment-resistant bulimic anorexia nervosa. BMJ Case Rep. 2020;13(11).

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Duncan L, Yilmaz Z, Gaspar H, Walters R, Goldstein J, Anttila V, et al. Significant locus and metabolic genetic correlations revealed in genome-wide association study of anorexia nervosa. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174(9):850–8.

Robinson P. Severe and enduring eating disorder (SEED): management of Complex presentations of Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa. Wiley; 2009.

Touyz S, Le Grange D, Lacey H, Hay P, Smith R, Maguire S, et al. Treating severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Med. 2013;43(12):2501–11.

Calugi S, El Ghoch M, Dalle Grave R. Intensive enhanced cognitive behavioural therapy for severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: a longitudinal outcome study. Behav Res Ther. 2017;89:41–8.

Voderholzer U, Fumi M, Werz J, Körner T, Cuntz U. [3-year course after successful therapy of extreme anorexia nervosa]. Nervenarzt. 2018;89(9):1063–8.

Dalton B, Austin A, Ching BCF, Potterton R, McClelland J, Bartholdy S, et al. My dad was like it’s your brain, what are you doing?‘: participant experiences of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in severe enduring anorexia nervosa. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2022;30(3):237–49.

Dalton B, Bartholdy S, McClelland J, Kekic M, Rennalls SJ, Werthmann J, et al. Randomised controlled feasibility trial of real versus sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in adults with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: the TIARA study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e021531.

Dalton B, Foerde K, Bartholdy S, McClelland J, Kekic M, Grycuk L, et al. The effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on food choice-related self-control in patients with severe, enduring anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(8):1326–36.

Dalton B, Lewis YD, Bartholdy S, Kekic M, McClelland J, Campbell IC, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in severe, enduring anorexia nervosa: an open longer-term follow-up. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2020;28(6):773–81.

Knyahnytska YO, Blumberger DM, Daskalakis ZJ, Zomorrodi R, Kaplan AS. Insula H-coil deep transcranial magnetic stimulation in severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN): a pilot study. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019;15:2247–56.

Johansson T, Birgegård A, Zhang R, Bergen SE, Landén M, Petersen LV, et al. Polygenic association with severity and long-term outcome in eating disorder cases. Translational Psychiatry. 2022;12(1):61.

Oudijn MS, Mocking RJT, Wijnker RR, Lok A, Schuurman PR, van den Munckhof P, et al. Deep brain stimulation of the ventral anterior limb of the capsula interna in patients with treatment-refractory anorexia nervosa. Brain Stimul. 2021;14(6):1528–30.

Pérez V, Villalba-Martínez G, Elices M, Manero RM, Salgado P, Ginés JM et al. Cognitive and quality‐of‐life related factors of body mass index (BMI) improvement after deep brain stimulation in the subcallosal cingulate and nucleus accumbens in treatment‐refractory chronic anorexia nervosa. Eur Eat Disorders Rev. 2022.

Scaife JC, Eraifej J, Green AL, Petric B, Aziz TZ, Park RJ. Deep brain stimulation of the Nucleus accumbens in severe Enduring Anorexia Nervosa: a pilot study. Front Behav Neurosci. 2022;16:842184.

González Macías L, Romo ADJ, Garcia-Anaya M. Group family psychotherapy during relapse. Case report of a novel intervention for severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. Salud Mental. 2021;44:31–7.

Hemmingsen SD, Lichtenstein MB, Hussain AA, Sjögren JM, Støving RK. Case report: cognitive performance in an extreme case of anorexia nervosa with a body mass index of 7.7. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):1–12.

Westermair AL, Perrar KM, Schweiger U. Ein Palliativer Ansatz für schwerste anorexia nervosa? Nervenarzt. 2020;91(5):411–6.

Herpertz-Dahlmann B. Serious and enduring anorexia nervosa from a developmental point of view: how to detect potential risks at an early stage and prevent chronic illness? Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(8):1313–4.

Bianchi A, Stanley K, Sutandar K. The ethical defensibility of Harm Reduction and Eating disorders. Am J Bioeth. 2021;21(7):46–56.

Marzola E, Martini M, Brustolin A, Abbate-Daga G. Inpatients with severe-enduring anorexia nervosa: understanding the enduringness specifier. Eur Psychiatry. 2021;64(1):e44.

Wildes JE, Forbush KT, Hagan KE, Marcus MD, Attia E, Gianini LM, et al. Characterizing severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: an empirical approach. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;50(4):389–97.

American Psychiatric Association APADSMTF. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bemer P, Di Lodovico L, Haykanush O, Théodon H, Briot K, Carlier R, et al. Bone mineral density at extremely low weight in patients with anorexia nervosa. Clin Endocrinol. 2021;95(3):423–9.

Bartholdy S, McClelland J, Kekic M, O’Daly OG, Campbell IC, Werthmann J, et al. Clinical outcomes and neural correlates of 20 sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (the TIARA study): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial. Trials. 2015;16(1):1–13.

Park RJ, Scaife JC, Aziz TZ. Study protocol: using deep-brain stimulation, Multimodal Neuroimaging and Neuroethics to understand and treat severe Enduring Anorexia Nervosa. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:24.

Frances A, First MB, Pincus HA. DSM-IV guidebook: American Psychiatric Association; 1995.

Fairburn CG, Beglin SJ. Assessment of eating disorders: interview or self-report questionnaire? Int J Eat Disord. 1994;16(4):363–70.

Park RJ, Singh I, Pike AC, Tan JO. Deep brain stimulation in Anorexia Nervosa: hope for the hopeless or Exploitation of the Vulnerable? The Oxford Neuroethics Gold Standard Framework. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:44.

Hay P, Touyz S. Treatment of patients with severe and enduring eating disorders. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2015;28(6):473–7.

Zhu J, Yang Y, Touyz S, Park R, Hay P. Psychological treatments for people with severe and Enduring Anorexia Nervosa: a Mini Review. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:206.

Smith S, Woodside DB. Characterizing treatment-resistant Anorexia Nervosa. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:542206.

Hübel C, Marzi SJ, Breen G, Bulik CM. Epigenetics in eating disorders: a systematic review. Mol Psychiatry. 2019;24(6):901–15.

Malcolm A, Phillipou A. Current directions in biomarkers and endophenotypes for anorexia nervosa: a scoping review. J Psychiatr Res. 2021.

Hirtz R, Hinney A. Genetic and epigenetic findings in anorexia nervosa. Med Gen. 2020;32(1):25–9.

Google Scholar  

Kushima I, Imaeda M, Tanaka S, Kato H, Oya-Ito T, Nakatochi M et al. Contribution of copy number variations to the risk of severe eating disorders. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2022.

Hernández S, Camarena B, González L, Caballero A, Flores G, Aguilar A. A family-based association study of the HTR1B gene in eating disorders. Brazilian J Psychiatry. 2016;38:239–42.

Booij L, Casey KF, Antunes JM, Szyf M, Joober R, Israël M, et al. DNA methylation in individuals with anorexia nervosa and in matched normal-eater controls: a genome‐wide study. Int J Eat Disord. 2015;48(7):874–82.

Steiger H, Booij L, Kahan, McGregor K, Thaler L, Fletcher E, et al. A longitudinal, epigenome-wide study of DNA methylation in anorexia nervosa: results in actively ill, partially weight-restored, long-term remitted and non-eating-disordered women. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2019;44(3):205–13.

Acevedo SF, Valencia C, Lutter M, McAdams CJ. Severity of eating disorder symptoms related to oxytocin receptor polymorphisms in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2015;228(3):641–8.

Castellini G, Ricca V, Lelli L, Bagnoli S, Lucenteforte E, Faravelli C, et al. Association between serotonin transporter gene polymorphism and eating disorders outcome: a 6-year follow‐up study. Am J Med Genet Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genet. 2012;159(5):491–500.

Chen J, Kang Q, Jiang W, Fan J, Zhang M, Yu S, et al. The 5-HTTLPR confers susceptibility to anorexia nervosa in Han Chinese: evidence from a case-control and family-based study. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0119378.

Czerniak E, Korostishevsky M, Frisch A, Cohen Y, Amariglio N, Rechavi G, et al. Association between a common CYP17A1 haplotype and anxiety in female anorexia nervosa. Arch Women Ment Health. 2013;16(5):423–8.

Gervasini G, Gordillo I, García-Herráiz A, Flores I, Jiménez M, Monge M, et al. Influence of dopamine polymorphisms on the risk for anorexia nervosa and associated psychopathological features. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013;33(4):551–5.

González LM, García-Herráiz A, Mota-Zamorano S, Flores I, Albuquerque D, Gervasini G. Variability in cannabinoid receptor genes is associated with psychiatric comorbidities in anorexia nervosa. Eating and Weight disorders-studies on Anorexia. Bulimia Obes. 2021;26(8):2597–606.

González LM, García-Herráiz A, Mota-Zamorano S, Flores I, Albuquerque D, Gervasini G. Variants in the obesity-linked FTO gene locus modulates psychopathological features of patients with Anorexia Nervosa. Gene. 2021;783:145572.

Kang Q, Chen J, Yu S, Yuan A, Zhang Y, Zhang R, et al. Association of the 5-HT2A receptor gene promoter polymorphism‐1438G/A with anorexia nervosa and psychopathological traits in the Chinese Han population: a preliminary study. Asia‐Pacific Psychiatry. 2017;9(3):e12284.

Kim Y-R, Kim J-H, Kim MJ, Treasure J. Differential methylation of the oxytocin receptor gene in patients with anorexia nervosa: a pilot study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e88673.

Neyazi A, Buchholz V, Burkert A, Hillemacher T, De Zwaan M, Herzog W, et al. Association of leptin gene DNA methylation with diagnosis and treatment outcome of anorexia nervosa. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:197.

Plana MT, Torres T, Rodríguez N, Boloc D, Gassó P, Moreno E, et al. Genetic variability in the serotoninergic system and age of onset in anorexia nervosa and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2019;271:554–8.

Scott-Van Zeeland AA, Bloss CS, Tewhey R, Bansal V, Torkamani A, Libiger O, et al. Evidence for the role of EPHX2 gene variants in anorexia nervosa. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19(6):724–32.

Yilmaz Z, Kaplan AS, Tiwari AK, Levitan RD, Piran S, Bergen AW, et al. The role of leptin, melanocortin, and neurotrophin system genes on body weight in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. J Psychiatr Res. 2014;55:77–86.

Karg K, Burmeister M, Shedden K, Sen S. The serotonin transporter promoter variant (5-HTTLPR), stress, and Depression Meta-analysis Revisited: evidence of genetic moderation. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(5):444–54.

Dubreucq J, Plasse J, Franck N. Self-stigma in Serious Mental illness: a systematic review of frequency, correlates, and consequences. Schizophr Bull. 2021;47(5):1261–87.

Gaynes BN, Lux L, Gartlehner G, Asher G, Forman-Hoffman V, Green J, et al. Defining treatment-resistant depression. Depress Anxiety. 2020;37(2):134–45.

Chesney E, Goodwin GM, Fazel S. Risks of all-cause and suicide mortality in mental disorders: a meta-review. World Psychiatry. 2014;13(2):153–60.

Dalle Grave R. Severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: no easy solutions. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(8):1320–1.

Wildes JE. Moving from I know it when I see it to an empirical classification of severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: Commentary on Wonderlich et al. (2020). Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(8):1315–7.

McIntosh VVW. Evidence-based treatments remain the best intervention for good long-term outcome of severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(8):1322–3.

Strober M. Managing the chronic, treatment-resistant patient with anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2004;36(3):245–55.

Dell’Osso L, Abelli M, Carpita B, Pini S, Castellini G, Carmassi C, et al. Historical evolution of the concept of anorexia nervosa and relationships with orthorexia nervosa, autism, and obsessive-compulsive spectrum. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016;12:1651–60.

King JA, Bernardoni F, Geisler D, Ritschel F, Doose A, Pauligk S, et al. Intact value-based decision-making during intertemporal choice in women with remitted anorexia nervosa? An fMRI study. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2020;45(2):108–16.

Iranzo-Tatay C, Hervas-Marin D, Rojo-Bofill L, Garcia D, Vaz-Leal F, Calabria I, et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation profiling in anorexia nervosa discordant identical twins. Translational Psychiatry. 2022;12(1):1–8.

Lee PH, Anttila V, Won H, Feng Y-CA, Rosenthal J, Zhu Z, et al. Genomic relationships, novel loci, and pleiotropic mechanisms across eight psychiatric disorders. Cell. 2019;179(7):1469–82. e11.

Murray SB, Nagata JM, Griffiths S, Calzo JP, Brown TA, Mitchison D, et al. The enigma of male eating disorders: a critical review and synthesis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;57:1–11.

Zoghbi AW, Dhindsa RS, Goldberg TE, Mehralizade A, Motelow JE, Wang X et al. High-impact rare genetic variants in severe schizophrenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021;118(51):e2112560118.

Ceccarini MR, Precone V, Manara E, Paolacci S, Maltese PE, Benfatti V, et al. A next generation sequencing gene panel for use in the diagnosis of anorexia nervosa. Eat Weight Disord. 2022;27(5):1869–80.

Guo Y, Wei Z, Keating BJ, Hakonarson H. Machine learning derived risk prediction of anorexia nervosa. BMC Med Genomics. 2016;9:4.

Lunenburg CATC, Gasse C. Pharmacogenetics in psychiatric care, a call for uptake of available applications. Psychiatry Res. 2020;292:113336.

Smith S, Woodside B. Is there a role for pharmacogenetics in the treatment of anorexia nervosa? Pharmacogenomics. 2016;17.

Thornton LM, Munn-Chernoff MA, Baker JH, Juréus A, Parker R, Henders AK, et al. The Anorexia Nervosa Genetics Initiative (ANGI): overview and methods. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;74:61–9.

Seidel M, Ehrlich S, Breithaupt L, Welch E, Wiklund C, Hübel C, et al. Study protocol of comprehensive risk evaluation for anorexia nervosa in twins (CREAT): a study of discordant monozygotic twins with anorexia nervosa. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):1–18.

Crisafulli MA, Von Holle A, Bulik CM. Attitudes towards anorexia nervosa: the impact of framing on blame and stigma. Int J Eat Disord. 2008;41(4):333–9.

Mitchison D, Hay P, Engel S, Crosby R, Le Grange D, Lacey H, et al. Assessment of quality of life in people with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: a comparison of generic and specific instruments. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13(1):1–9.

Conti J, Rhodes P, Adams H. Listening in the dark: why we need stories of people living with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. J Eat Disorders. 2016;4(1):1–7.

Steinglass JE, Glasofer DR, Dalack M, Attia E. Between wellness, relapse, and remission: stages of illness in anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(7):1088–96.

Calabrese L, Scolnick B, Zupec-Kania B, Beckwith C, Costello K, Frank GKW. Ketogenic diet and ketamine infusion treatment to target chronic persistent eating disorder psychopathology in anorexia nervosa: a pilot study. Eat Weight Disord. 2022;27(8):3751–7.

Forbes DA. Futility in adolescent anorexia nervosa and the question of withdrawal of care. J Paediatr Child Health. 2020;56(1):5–7.

Guinhut M, Godart N, Benadjaoud MA, Melchior JC, Hanachi M. Five-year mortality of severely malnourished patients with chronic anorexia nervosa admitted to a medical unit. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2021;143(2):130–40.

Israely M, Ram A, Brandeis R, Alter Z, Avraham Y, Berry EM. A double Blind, Randomized Cross-over Trial of Tyrosine treatment on cognitive function and psychological parameters in severe hospitalized anorexia nervosa patients. Isr J Psychiatry. 2017;54(3):52–8.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mishima R, Isobe M, Noda T, Tose K, Kawabata M, Noma S, et al. Structural brain changes in severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: a multimodal magnetic resonance imaging study of gray matter volume, cortical thickness, and white matter integrity. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. 2021;318:111393.

Russell J, Mulvey B, Bennett H, Donnelly B, Frig E. Harm minimization in severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019;31(4):391–402.

Strand M, Sjöstrand M, Lindblad A. A palliative care approach in psychiatry: clinical implications. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21(1):29.

Tumba J, Smith M, Rodenbach KE. Clinical and ethical dilemmas in the Involuntary treatment of Anorexia Nervosa. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2023;31(1):14–21.

Ando T, Ishikawa T, Hotta M, Naruo T, Okabe K, Nakahara T, et al. No association of brain-derived neurotrophic factor Val66Met polymorphism with anorexia nervosa in Japanese. Am J Med Genet Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genet. 2012;159(1):48–52.

Ando T, Tamura N, Mera T, Morita C, Takei M, Nakamoto C, et al. Association of the c. 385C > A (p. Pro129Thr) polymorphism of the fatty acid amide hydrolase gene with anorexia nervosa in the Japanese population. Mol Genet Genom Med. 2014;2(4):313–8.

Augoulea A, Armeni E, Deligeoroglou E, Paschou SA, Papadimitriou G, Stergioti E, et al. MTHFR Polymorphisms in girls with Anorexia Nervosa: implications on Body Weight. Endocr Res. 2021;46(2):80–5.

Baeza-Velasco C, Seneque M, Courtet P, Olié É, Chatenet C, Espinoza P et al. Joint hypermobility and clinical correlates in a group of patients with eating disorders. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12.

Batury V-L, Walton E, Tam F, Wronski M-L, Buchholz V, Frieling H, et al. DNA methylation of ghrelin and leptin receptors in underweight and recovered patients with anorexia nervosa. J Psychiatr Res. 2020;131:271–8.

Boehm I, Walton E, Alexander N, Batury V-L, Seidel M, Geisler D, et al. Peripheral serotonin transporter DNA methylation is linked to increased salience network connectivity in females with anorexia nervosa. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2020;45(3):206–13.

Caso JR, Graell M, Navalon A, MacDowell KS, Gutierrez S, Soto M, et al. Dysfunction of inflammatory pathways in adolescent female patients with anorexia nervosa. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020;96:109727.

Ceccarini MR, Tasegian A, Franzago M, Patria FF, Albi E, Codini M, et al. 5-HT2AR and BDNF gene variants in eating disorders susceptibility. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2020;183(3):155–63.

Chang X, Qu H, Liu Y, Glessner J, Hou C, Wang F, et al. Microduplications at the 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 locus are enriched in patients with anorexia nervosa. J Psychiatr Res. 2019;113:34–8.

Clarke J, Ramoz N, Fladung A-K, Gorwood P. Higher reward value of starvation imagery in anorexia nervosa and association with the Val66Met BDNF polymorphism. Translational Psychiatry. 2016;6(6):e829–e.

Clarke T-K, Crist RC, Doyle GA, Weiss AR, Brandt H, Crawford S, et al. Characterization of genetic variation in the VGLL4 gene in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatr Genet. 2014;24(4):183–4.

Dmitrzak-Weglarz M, Moczko J, Skibinska M, Slopien A, Tyszkiewicz M, Pawlak J, et al. The study of candidate genes related to the neurodevelopmental hypothesis of anorexia nervosa: classical association study versus decision tree. Psychiatry Res. 2013;206(1):117–21.

Dmitrzak-Weglarz M, Szczepankiewicz A, Slopien A, Tyszkiewicz M, Maciukiewicz M, Zaremba D, et al. Association of the glucocorticoid receptor gene polymorphisms and their interaction with stressful life events in Polish adolescent girls with anorexia nervosa. Psychiatria Danubina. 2016;28(1):0–57.

Dudzińska E, Szymona K, Kloc R, Kocki T, Gil-Kulik P, Bogucki J, et al. Fractalkine, sICAM-1 and Kynurenine Pathway in Restrictive Anorexia nervosa–exploratory study. Nutrients. 2021;13(2):339.

Ehrlich S, Walton E, Roffman JL, Weiss D, Puls I, Doehler N, et al. Smoking, but not malnutrition, influences promoter-specific DNA methylation of the proopiomelanocortin gene in patients with and without anorexia nervosa. Can J Psychiatry. 2012;57(3):168–76.

Faje AT, Fazeli PK, Katzman DK, Miller KK, Breggia A, Rosen CJ, et al. Sclerostin levels and bone turnover markers in adolescents with anorexia nervosa and healthy adolescent girls. Bone. 2012;51(3):474–9.

Fan Y, Støving RK, Berreira Ibraim S, Hyötyläinen T, Thirion F, Arora T et al. The gut microbiota contributes to the pathogenesis of anorexia nervosa in humans and mice. Nat Microbiol. 2023.

Favaro A, Clementi M, Manara R, Bosello R, Forzan M, Bruson A, et al. Catechol-O-methyltransferase genotype modifies executive functioning and prefrontal functional connectivity in women with anorexia nervosa. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2013;38(4):241–8.

Franzago M, Orecchini E, Porreca A, Mondanelli G, Orabona C, Dalla Ragione L et al. SLC6A4 DNA methylation levels and Serum Kynurenine/Tryptophan Ratio in eating disorders: a possible link with psychopathological traits? Nutrients. 2023;15(2).

Galimberti E, Fadda E, Cavallini MC, Martoni RM, Erzegovesi S, Bellodi L. Executive functioning in anorexia nervosa patients and their unaffected relatives. Psychiatry Res. 2013;208(3):238–44.

Gamero-Villarroel C, González LM, Gordillo I, Carrillo JA, García-Herráiz A, Flores I, et al. Impact of NEGR1 genetic variability on psychological traits of patients with eating disorders. Pharmacogenomics J. 2015;15(3):278–83.

Gamero-Villarroel C, González LM, Rodríguez‐López R, Albuquerque D, Carrillo JA, García‐Herráiz A, et al. Influence of TFAP 2B and KCTD 15 genetic variability on personality dimensions in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Brain Behav. 2017;7(9):e00784.

Gamero-Villarroel C, Gordillo I, Carrillo JA, García-Herráiz A, Flores I, Jiménez M, et al. BDNF genetic variability modulates psychopathological symptoms in patients with eating disorders. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;23(8):669–79.

Gamero-Villarroel C, Rodriguez-Lopez R, Jimenez M, Carrillo JA, Garcia-Herraiz A, Albuquerque D, et al. Melanocortin-4 receptor gene variants are not associated with binge-eating behavior in nonobese patients with eating disorders. Psychiatr Genet. 2015;25(1):35–8.

Gervasini G, González LM, Gamero-Villarroel C, Mota-Zamorano S, Carrillo JA, Flores I, et al. Effect of dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) haplotypes on general psychopathology in patients with eating disorders. Gene. 2018;654:43–8.

Gervasini G, Gonzalez L, Mota-Zamorano S, Gamero-Villarroel C, Carrillo J, Flores I, et al. Association of COMT Val158Met polymorphism with psychopathological symptoms in patients with eating disorders. Curr Mol Med. 2018;18(1):65–70.

He Q, Lian C, Peng S, Chen H, Kang Q, Chen J. Hypermethylation of the serotonin transporter gene and paternal parenting styles in untreated anorexia nervosa patients: a pilot study. Heliyon. 2023;9(2).

Hernández-Muñoz S, Camarena-Medellin B, González-Macías L, Aguilar-García A, Flores-Flores G, Dominguez DL, et al. Sequence analysis of five exons of SLC6A4 gene in Mexican patients with anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Gene. 2020;748:144675.

İnan-Erdoğan I, Akgül S, Işgın-Atıcı K, Tuğrul-Yücel T, Boduroğlu K, Derman O, et al. Effects of vitamin D and estrogen receptor polymorphisms on bone mineral density in adolescents with anorexia nervosa. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2019;32(12):1377–84.

Kesselmeier M, Pütter C, Volckmar A-L, Baurecht H, Grallert H, Illig T, et al. High-throughput DNA methylation analysis in anorexia nervosa confirms TNXB hypermethylation. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2018;19(3):187–99.

Kim Y, Trace SE, Crowley JJ, Brownley KA, Hamer RM, Pisetsky DS, et al. Assessment of gene expression in peripheral blood using RNAseq before and after weight restoration in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2013;210(1):287–93.

Kim YR, Kim JH, Kim CH, Shin JG, Treasure J. Association between the oxytocin receptor gene polymorphism (rs53576) and bulimia nervosa. Eur Eat Disorders Rev. 2015;23(3):171–8.

Kucharska K, Kot E, Biernacka K, Zimowski J, Rogoza R, Rybakowski F, et al. Interaction between polymorphisms of the oxytocinergic system genes and emotion perception in inpatients with anorexia nervosa. Eur Eat Disorders Rev. 2019;27(5):481–94.

Lawson EA, Holsen LM, Santin M, Meenaghan E, Eddy KT, Becker AE, et al. Oxytocin secretion is associated with severity of disordered eating psychopathology and insular cortex hypoactivation in anorexia nervosa. J Clin Endocrinol Metabolism. 2012;97(10):E1898–908.

Lin Z, Lebrun N, Clarke J, Duriez P, Gorwood P, Ramoz N, et al. Identification of rare variants in cadm1 in patients with anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113191.

Lutter M, Bahl E, Hannah C, Hofammann D, Acevedo S, Cui H, et al. Novel and ultra-rare damaging variants in neuropeptide signaling are associated with disordered eating behaviors. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0181556.

Müller TD, Greene BH, Bellodi L, Cavallini MC, Cellini E, Di Bella D, et al. Fat mass and obesity-associated gene (FTO) in eating disorders: evidence for association of the rs9939609 obesity risk allele with bulimia nervosa and anorexia nervosa. Obes Facts. 2012;5(3):408–19.

Zipfel S, Wild B, Groß G, Friederich HC, Teufel M, Schellberg D, et al. Focal psychodynamic therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, and optimised treatment as usual in outpatients with anorexia nervosa (ANTOP study): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):127–37.

Ortega FJ, Agüera Z, Sabater M, Moreno-Navarrete JM, Alonso‐Ledesma I, Xifra G, et al. Genetic variations of the bitter taste receptor TAS2R38 are associated with obesity and impact on single immune traits. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016;60(7):1673–83.

Phillipou A, Gurvich C, Castle DJ, Rossell SL. Anorexia nervosa, weight restoration and biological siblings: differences and similarities in clinical characteristics. Australas Psychiatry. 2022;30(4):458–61.

Rudolph A, Stengel A, Suhs M, Schaper S, Wölk E, Rose M, et al. Circulating neuronatin levels are positively Associated with BMI and body Fat Mass but not with psychological parameters. Nutrients. 2023;15(16):3657.

Sala M, Han K, Acevedo S, Krawczyk DC, McAdams CJ. Oxytocin receptor polymorphism decreases midline neural activations to social stimuli in anorexia nervosa. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2183.

Schroeder M, Eberlein C, de Zwaan M, Kornhuber J, Bleich S, Frieling H. Lower levels of cannabinoid 1 receptor mRNA in female eating disorder patients: association with wrist cutting as impulsive self-injurious behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2012;37(12):2032–6.

Shih PB, Yang J, Morisseau C, German JB, Zeeland AA, Armando AM, et al. Dysregulation of soluble epoxide hydrolase and lipidomic profiles in anorexia nervosa. Mol Psychiatry. 2016;21(4):537–46.

Shimizu M, Kawai K, Yamashita M, Shoji M, Takakura S, Hata T, et al. Very long chain fatty acids are an important marker of nutritional status in patients with anorexia nervosa: a case control study. Biopsychosoc Med. 2020;14(1):1–9.

Stergioti E, Deligeoroglou E, Economou E, Tsitsika A, Dimopoulos K, Daponte A, et al. Gene receptor polymorphism as a risk factor for BMD deterioration in adolescent girls with anorexia nervosa. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(7):716–9.

Subramanian S, Braun PR, Han S, Potash JB. Investigation of differential HDAC4 methylation patterns in eating disorders. Psychiatr Genet. 2018;28(1):12–5.

Svedlund A, Tubic B, Elfvin A, Magnusson P, Swolin-Eide D. The significance of the FTO Gene for Weight and body composition in Swedish women with severe Anorexia Nervosa during Intensive Nutrition Therapy. J Am Nutr Assoc. 2022;41(6):594–9.

Tenconi E, Degortes D, Clementi M, Collantoni E, Pinato C, Forzan M, et al. Clinical and genetic correlates of decision making in anorexia nervosa. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2016;38(3):327–37.

Thaler L, Brassard S, Booij L, Kahan E, McGregor K, Labbe A, et al. Methylation of the OXTR gene in women with anorexia nervosa: relationship to social behavior. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2020;28(1):79–86.

Tremolizzo L, Conti E, Bomba M, Uccellini O, Rossi MS, Marfone M, et al. Decreased whole-blood global DNA methylation is related to serum hormones in anorexia nervosa adolescents. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2014;15(4):327–33.

Yilmaz Z, Schaumberg K, Halvorsen M, Goodman EL, Brosof LC, Crowley JJ, et al. Predicting eating disorder and anxiety symptoms using disorder-specific and transdiagnostic polygenic scores for anorexia nervosa and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychol Med. 2023;53(7):3021–35.

Zhang C, Chen J, Jia X, Yu S, Jiang W, Zhang R, et al. Estrogen receptor 1 gene rs2295193 polymorphism and anorexia nervosa: new data and meta-analysis. Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2013;5(4):331–5.

Zhang R, Birgegård A, Fundín B, Landén M, Thornton LM, Bulik CM, et al. Association of autism diagnosis and polygenic scores with eating disorder severity. Eur Eat Disorders Rev. 2022;30(5):442–58.

Zhang R, Kuja-Halkola R, Birgegård A, Larsson H, Lichtenstein P, Bulik CM, et al. Association of family history of schizophrenia and clinical outcomes in individuals with eating disorders. Psychol Med. 2023;53(2):371–8.

Zheng Y, Rajcsanyi LS, Herpertz-Dahlmann B, Seitz J, de Zwaan M, Herzog W, et al. PTBP2 - a gene with relevance for both Anorexia nervosa and body weight regulation. Transl Psychiatry. 2022;12(1):241.

Zheng Y, Rajcsanyi LS, Kowalczyk M, Giuranna J, Herpertz-Dahlmann B, Seitz J, et al. Lipocalin 2 - mutation screen and serum levels in patients with anorexia nervosa or obesity and in lean individuals. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1137308.

Ziora-Jakutowicz KN, Zimowski J, Ziora K, Bednarska-Makaruk M, Świętochowska E, Gorczyca P, et al. Evaluation of the frequency of ADIPOQ c.45 T > G and ADIPOQ c.276 G > T polymorphisms in adiponectin coding gene in girls with anorexia nervosa. Endokrynol Pol. 2021;72(5):520–8.

Ziora-Jakutowicz KN, Zimowski J, Ziora K, Bednarska-Makaruk M, Świętochowska E, Gorczyca P, et al. Evaluation of the frequency of RETN c.62G > A and RETN c.-180C > G polymorphisms in the resistin coding gene in girls with anorexia nervosa. Endokrynol Pol. 2021;72(5):529–38.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Michael Lutter for his valuable insight and review of the paper.

No funding resources were used in the creation of this review. This work was performed in support of S. Ramsay’s Healthcare Genetics and Genomics doctoral dissertation.

Open access funding provided by the Carolinas Consortium.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Healthcare Genetics and Genomics Program, School of Nursing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA

Sarah Ramsay, Luigi Boccuto & Sara M. Sarasua

School of Nursing, Clemson University , Clemson, SC 29634, USA

Kendra Allison & Heide S. Temples

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SR: Conceptualization, research, writing- original draftKA: Review and editing LB: Review and editingSS: Review and editingHST: Review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Ramsay .

Ethics declarations

Human ethics and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ramsay, S., Allison, K., Temples, H.S. et al. Inclusion of the severe and enduring anorexia nervosa phenotype in genetics research: a scoping review. J Eat Disord 12 , 53 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-024-01009-9

Download citation

Received : 17 November 2023

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 29 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-024-01009-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Severe enduring anorexia nervosa

Journal of Eating Disorders

ISSN: 2050-2974

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Wall Street Lunch: Musk Pitches Tesla Stake To Buffett

• Elon Musk suggests that Warren Buffett should take a position in Tesla.
• iPhone dominated the smartphone market during Q1 - Counterpoint Research.
• The Magnificent 7 contribute about one-fifth of earnings growth to the S&P 500 - Citi.

Richard Drury/DigitalVision via Getty Images

Elon Musk says Warren Buffett should take a stake in Tesla ( NASDAQ: TSLA ).

Elon Musk says Berkshire should take Tesla stake after trimming Apple. (0:16) Robinhood Crypto gets SEC Wells Notice . (1:41) iPhone takes top 4 spots in Q1 smartphone sales . (2:18)

In a post on Monday on X (formerly Twitter), Musk said Buffet “should take a position in Tesla. It's an obvious move.”

The reply came in response to a post calling for Buffett to buy TSLA after Berkshire Hathaway ( NYSE: BRK.A ) ( BRK.B ) disclosed a reduced stake in Apple ( AAPL ).

At the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting on Saturday, Buffett said if Tesla manages to significantly reduce car accidents through automation technology, that would reduce costs and prices. Ajit Jain, vice chairman of Berkshire's insurance operations, said Tesla has yet to be successful with this automation effort.

Buffett said Berkshire will see "modest" growth in operating earnings in 2024 vs. 2023.

In today’s trading

Growth stocks are leading gains in the major averages, with the Nasdaq (COMP.IND) up +0.75%, ahead of the S&P 500 ( SP500 ). Energy ( XLE ) and Industrials ( XLI ) are the leading sectors, with Consumer Staples ( XLP ) bringing up the rear.

Among active stocks

Steward Health Care System, the largest U.S. physician-led hospital operator, said it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy , a move that was widely expected.

The company is finalizing the terms of debtor-in-possession financing from Medical Properties Trust ( MPW ) for initial funding of $75 million and up to an additional $225 million contingent on certain conditions. Steward is the largest tenant of MPW. Shares of MPW are down more than 5%.

Robinhood Markets ( HOOD ) slid after it disclosed its crypto arm received a "Wells notice" from the staff of the SEC . The SEC staff told Robinhood Crypto that it made a "preliminary determination" to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action for securities violations.

And Tyson Foods ( TSN ) fell sharply as the company warned on inflation denting demand for ready-to-eat and branded products.

Melanie Boulden, who overseas Tyson’s Prepared Foods business, said in a conference call, "The consumer is under pressure, especially the lower-income households," and inflation has contributed to a “more cautious, price-sensitive consumer,” according to Bloomberg.

In other news of note

Apple's ( AAPL ) iconic iPhone dominated the smartphone market during the first quarter of 2024, according to data by Counterpoint Research .

Despite concerns of iPhone sales declining in China, iPhones made up the top 4 spots on Counterpoint Research's Global Monthly Handset Model Sales Tracker.

The iPhone 15 Pro Max led all smartphone sales for the first quarter, capturing 4.4% of the global market. It was followed by the iPhone 15, the iPhone 15 Pro, and the iPhone 14 to round out the top four. It marked the first time a Pro Max model ranked No. 1 during a non-seasonal quarter for Apple.

Samsung's ( OTCPK:SSNLF ) Galaxy S24 Ultra ranked No. 5 during the quarter, followed by the Galaxy A15 5G, the Galaxy A54, and the iPhone 15 Plus. The ninth and tenth spots were held by the Galaxy S24 and Galaxy A34, respectively.

And in the Wall Street Research Corner

The Magnificent 7 contributes about one-fifth of the earnings growth to the S&P 500 , and analysts are ramping up expectations, according to Citi.

Those stocks—Apple ( AAPL ), Amazon ( AMZN ), Alphabet ( GOOG ) ( GOOGL ), Meta ( META ), Microsoft ( MSFT ), Nvidia ( NVDA ), and Tesla ( TSLA )—have seen Q1 earnings estimates rise more than 29%. (Nvidia has yet to report Q1.)

But looking at full-year 2024, Citi has “been most focused on the underlying trajectory of the 'other 493,'" strategist Scott Chronert wrote in a note.

"For this cohort, full-year earnings growth has become slightly less negative," Chronert said. "That is, the -6.8% earnings decline was at -7% headed into Q1. So, again, the message here is that a good positive surprise quarter is not translating directly into higher full-year growth expectations, but we are seeing stabilization."

This article was written by

Recommended For You

Past podcasts, trending analysis, trending news.

Advertisement

Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country

By The New York Times Updated May 1, 4:40 P.M. ET

• Share full article

Twenty-one states ban abortion or restrict the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the standard set by Roe v. Wade, which governed reproductive rights for nearly half a century until the Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2022.

In some states, the fight over abortion access is still taking place in courtrooms, where advocates have sued to block bans and restrictions. Other states have moved to expand access to abortion by adding legal protections.

Latest updates

• The Arizona state legislature voted to repeal an 1864 ban on nearly all abortions. Officials warned that the near-total ban may be briefly enforceable this summer until the repeal takes effect in the fall. A 15-week ban remains in effect.
• A ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy took effect in Florida , following a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that the privacy protections of the state’s Constitution do not extend to abortion.

The New York Times is tracking abortion laws in each state after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which ended the constitutional right to an abortion.

Where abortion is legal

In a few states that have enacted bans or restrictions, abortion remains legal for now as courts determine whether these laws can take effect. Abortion is legal in the rest of the country, and many states have added new protections since Dobbs.

Ban in effect

Note: TK note here.

Legal for now

State details.

More details on the current status of abortion in each state are below.

An earlier version of this article misstated the legal status of abortion in Utah. As of 4 p.m. on June 24, the state attorney general had issued a statement saying the state’s abortion ban had been triggered, but it had not yet been authorized by the legislature’s general counsel. By 8:30 p.m., the counsel authorized the ban and it went into effect.

A table in an earlier version of this article misstated which abortion ban is being challenged in Texas state court. Abortion rights supporters are challenging a pre-Roe ban, not the state’s trigger ban.

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the legal status of abortion in Indiana. While Indiana abortion providers stopped offering abortion services in anticipation of an abortion ban taking effect on Aug. 1, the law did not take effect.