MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968533570 · doi:10.1080/10640261003719468

Factors Influencing Research Drug Trials in Adolescents With Anorexia Nervosa

2010· article· en· W1968533570 on OpenAlexaff
Mark L. Norris, Wendy Spettigue, Annick Buchholz, Katherine A. Henderson, Nicole Obeid

Bibliographic record

VenueEating Disorders · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnorexia nervosaOlanzapinePsychiatryRandomized controlled trialMedicineInclusion and exclusion criteriaClinical psychologyPsychologyEating disordersAlternative medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined factors that contributed to patient's eligibility and participation in a randomized controlled trial involving olanzapine for the adjunctive treatment of anorexia nervosa (AN). Factors involving patient eligibility and willingness to participate were systematically recorded for all patients approached to participate. Of the 92 patients that were assessed and treated over the study timeframe, only 27 patients (29%) met full criteria for inclusion, of which just 7 enrolled (26%). The most common reasons for study refusal related to fears associated with medication effects and refusal to consider medication as a treatment option (70%). Factors affecting recruitment in psychopharmacological studies involving AN in youth are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.167
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.304
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1670.304
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207