Treatment Resistance in Anorexia Nervosa and the Pervasiveness of Ethics in Clinical Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical efforts to treat anorexia nervosa (AN) are constantly resisted by patients. Although the primacy of patient autonomy is a cornerstone of modern medical ethics, clinicians will nonetheless often be justified in pursuing particular interventions despite such resistance, give the reduced competency of patients suffering from this multifactorial psychiatric illness. While a literature exists on the ethical justification for imposing treatment, that literature has focused exclusively on situations in which patients refuse treatment outright. When patients resist rather than refuse treatment, clinicians are faced with the ethical challenge of deciding whether particular interventions constitute justified infringements upon patient autonomy. Given the fact that treatment resistance is endemic to AN, we see that ethical decision making must also be a continual part of the disorder's treatment. This paper argues that the treatment of AN merely constitutes a particularly clear example of what is in fact a general phenomenon: ethical decision making pervades all clinical practice.
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 | 0.062 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".