An open trial of outpatient group therapy for bulimic disorders: Combination program of cognitive behavioral therapy with assertive training and self‐esteem enhancement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to examine the therapeutic efficacy of combined group cognitive behavioral therapy (CGCBT) and to explore the characteristics of the patients who failed to complete it. Our group cognitive behavioral therapy combined with assertiveness training for alexithymia and self-esteem enhancement therapy were attended over a 10-week period. Twenty-five participants were enrolled in the study. The clinical symptoms were assessed before and after treatment, using rating scales including the Eating Disorder Inventory-2, the Bulimic Investigatory Test, Edinburgh, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning. Sixteen participants (64%) completed the CGCBT program. Completion of the CGCBT resulted in significant improvements in reducing binge-eating behavior and improving social functioning. Eight patients (32%) significantly improved using the Clinical Global Impression Change (CGI-C). Stepwise logistic regression analysis of the results indicated that a lower age (P=0.04) and psychiatric comorbidity (P=0.06) were predictors of dropout from the CGCBT program. Our CGCBT program is a promising first-line treatment for bulimic outpatients. Lower age and the presence of comorbidity had effects on dropout rates.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.000 | 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 it