An Open Trial of Light Therapy for Women With Seasonal Affective Disorder and Comorbid Bulimia Nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many patients with seasonal affective disorder (SAD) have dysfunctional eating behaviors. Conversely, many women with bulimia nervosa have marked winter worsening of mood and bulimic symptoms. Controlled studies of light therapy in SAD and in bulimia nervosa have shown beneficial effects on mood and binge/purge symptoms. We explored the clinical use of light therapy in women with SAD who also had comorbid bulimia nervosa. METHOD: Twenty-two female patients diagnosed using DSM-IV criteria with both bulimia nervosa and major depressive disorder with a seasonal (winter) pattern were treated with an open design, 4-week trial of light therapy (10,000 lux fluorescent light box with an ultraviolet filter, 30 to 60 minutes per day in the early morning). Patients were assessed before and after treatment with depression scales and with binge/purge diaries. RESULTS: Light therapy resulted in significant improvement in mood, with a mean 56% reduction in 29-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores following treatment (p < .001). The frequency of binges and purges per week also significantly decreased (p < .001) from baseline by a mean of 46% and 36%, respectively. Two (9%) of 22 patients became abstinent of binge/ purge episodes, compared with 10 (45%) of 22 patients who met criteria for remission of depressive symptoms. The light therapy was well tolerated by patients. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that therapeutic effects of light therapy on mood and bulimic symptoms in patients with SAD and comorbid bulimia nervosa are sustained over at least 4 weeks. However, the low abstinence rate in bulimic symptoms indicates that light therapy may be most effectively used as an adjunctive treatment to medications and/or psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".