MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An open trial of outpatient group therapy for bulimic disorders: Combination program of cognitive behavioral therapy with assertive training and self‐esteem enhancement

2005· article· en· W1983126594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Akihiro Shiina, Michiko Nakazato, Makoto Mitsumori, Hiroki Koizumi, Eiji Shimizu, Mihisa Fujisaki, Masaomi Iyo

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssertivenessGroup psychotherapyClinical psychologyPsychologyCognitionCognitive therapySelf-esteemCognitive behavioral therapyPsychotherapistMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry and Clinical NeurosciencesSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207