Topiramate Use in Obese Patients with Binge Eating Disorder: An Open Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess topiramate's efficacy and tolerability in a group of obese binge eaters with no neuropsychiatric comorbidity. METHOD: We consecutively selected 8 obese patients with binge eating disorder (BED) and no medical or psychiatric comorbidity from individuals seeking treatment for obesity. Treatment with topiramate at 150 mg daily was administered over a 16-week period. To assess outcome, we employed the days with binge episodes per week (DBE), the Binge Eating Scale (BES), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and body weight evaluation. RESULTS: Of the 6 patients who completed the trial, all showed reduced binge eating. Four patients presented a total remission, and 2 had a marked reduction in binge eating frequency. The mean DBE decreased significantly from 4.3 to 1.1 (P = 0.03), as did the BES scores, which fell from 31.8 to 15.3 (P = 0.04). Moreover, there was a statistically significant weight loss (mean 4.1 kg, P = 0.04). The most frequent side effects were paresthesias, fatigue, and somnolence. CONCLUSION: Topiramate may be an effective and well-tolerated agent in the treatment of BED in obese patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".