Neurosurgical Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa: Review of the Literature from Leucotomy to Deep Brain Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the literature on the surgical treatment of refractory anorexia nervosa (AN) and examines how this literature can inform current circuit models of the disease. The literature contains reports of 35 patients undergoing a neurosurgical procedure for the specific treatment of refractory AN, with the first reported operation, a lobotomy, in 1950. All patients were deemed treatment resistant according to contemporary standards, with the nature of the procedure changing with evolving surgical techniques and methods. All procedures targeted the limbic system and, in a majority of cases, were associated with reported symptomatic improvement. Neurosurgery in AN has been, and continues to be, reserved for patients with chronic and life-threatening illness, for whom conventional treatment has failed. Early procedures, which were viewed as life-saving measures, were crude by today's standards but targeted anatomic structures and pathways implicated in modern models of AN. The last decade has seen a concerted effort in elucidating the neurocircuitry underlying prominent etiologic and maintaining factors in AN, including mood, anxiety and dysfunctional reward processing. This has translated into the development of novel, focused therapeutic options for patients with treatment-refractory AN.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".