MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037632524 · doi:10.3148/63.4.2002.202

<i>A Nutrition and Behaviour Change Group</i> For Patients with Anorexia Nervosa

2002· article· en· W2037632524 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jodie L. Waisberg, Marie T. Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu HospitalKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnorexia nervosaCalorieEating disordersEating Attitudes TestWeight gainMedicineAnorexiaNormalization (sociology)Weight changeBody weightPhysical therapyOutpatient clinicFood consumptionPsychologyTest (biology)PsychiatryWeight lossInternal medicineObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pilot outpatient group for patients with anorexia nervosa was developed and co-led by a dietitian and a psychologist on a general hospital eating disorders team. The main goal of the short-term nutrition and behaviour change group was weight gain through normalization of eating. The first three groups conducted in the clinic were evaluated by monitoring group members' weights, collecting pre-treatment and post-treatment scores on the Eating Attitudes Test-26, and comparing earlier and later food records. The mean (+/- standard deviation) patient weight gain per eight-week group cycle was 1.6 (+/- 1.9) kg (p<0.05) and the Eating Attitudes Test-26 score change was -17.1 (+/- 11.5) points (p<0.01). Statistically significant changes were found in consumption of calories (p<0.01), fat (p<0.005), and protein (p<0.02). This treatment approach warrants further refinement and investigation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207