Book Review: Eating Disorders: Evidence Based Treatment for Eating Disorders: Children, Adolescents and Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating Disorders Evidence Based Treatment for Eating Disorders: Children, Adolescents and Adults Ida F Dancyger, Victor M Fornati, editors. New York (NY): Nova Science Publishers, Ine; 2009. 368 p. US$79.00 Reviewer rating: Very Good an increasing number of clinicians depend on evidence-based medicine to guarantee that the care they deliver to their patients is of the highest possible quality and is scientifically based, there remain other clinicians who are not in favour of replacing their professional creativity with some form of manual-based or pre-programmed practice. This book has achieved the status of an authoritative reference that has successfully merged evidence- and experience-based approaches to the treatment of eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorders, and obesity. This book addresses 4 major themes: the biopsychosocial basis of eating disorders, the available different treatment modalities and the issue of treatment resistance, evidenceand informed-based approaches to the psychotherapy of eating disorders, and the pharmacological treatment of eating disorders. These themes are addressed in 19 chapters, with each chapter written by one or more international experts, known for their research and experience in their respective fields. Each chapter ends with a clinical vignette that demonstrates, in a clinical situation, the issues discussed in the chapter. The book chapters are generally well written, although, in some chapters, the authors tended to refer to the literature by citing the names of all the authors and coauthors instead of using the formula, the first author et al. As some articles referred to are written by several authors, the reader will be inconvenienced by going through 4 to 5 lines of names on every other page. It was very appropriate and timely to include a chapter on Evidence-Guided Treatment for Males with Eating Disorders. However, I felt the chapter was not as informative as I would have liked it to be. At the beginning of the chapter, the authors stated that have indicated that males are similar to females in terms of weight control methods, however, other studies revealed more laxative use in male as compared to female eating disorder patients. p 157 Then at the conclusion of the chapter, the same authors stated that, Although males seem to use laxatives with less frequency, have less preoccupation with thinness, and are less motivated for therapy . …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.028 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".