Mandating weekly weight gain in a day treatment program for eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined differences in treatment outcome associated with a "self-directed"- versus "external-incentive"-based day treatment protocol for individuals with eating disorders (EDs) with below normal body mass index. The self-directed protocol recommended a weekly 500 g weight gain, but allowed participants freedom to gain weight at their own rate; the "external-incentive" protocol required a minimum weight gain of 500 g/week as a requirement for staying in the program. METHOD: Weight outcome was available for 49 individuals who were treated with the recommended weight gain protocol, and 40 individuals who were treated with the required weight gain protocol. RESULTS: Post-treatment weight was significantly higher in patients treated in the required weight gain protocol compared to those treated in the recommended weight gain protocol. All patients, regardless of which program they completed, showed improvements in the measures of eating-disorder and comorbid-psychiatric symptoms. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated the benefits of an alteration in protocol that required no additional financial or human resources. Further studies are needed to validate the effectiveness of various day treatment protocol parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".