It is in my public dropbox folder (and I uploaded it to the shared eating disorder folder - RE previous post).
Empirical Classification of Eating Disorders.
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306; email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Current diagnostic criteria for anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN) account for a minority of individuals with clinically significant disorders of eating, raising concerns about the clinical utility of current definitions. This review examines evidence for the validity of current and alternative approaches to defining eating disorders and implications for draft criteria for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Although this review largely supports the predictive validity of distinctions among AN, BN, and the newly proposed binge eating disorder (BED), it also highlights that our tendency to "study what we define" has created a gap between the problems that people have and what we know about those problems. Future research on the causes and consequences of eating disorders should include more heterogeneous groups to enable identification of meaningful boundaries that distinguish between disorders based on etiological and predictive validity. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology Volume 8 is March 26, 2012. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.
In terms of triggers, nothing too triggering in my opinion. Of course it talks about diagnostic criteria, so that's about the most it gets with numbers, doesn't talk about patient groups being x-weigh or whatever or anything because it is a review... of course there are stats on treatment efficacy, relapse rates, and that kind of stuff. So, be cautious of you are easily triggered. But, as I've said before, it is the nature of these things, it is a science paper... can't really be without numbers.