Olanzapine Use for the Adjunctive Treatment of Adolescents with Anorexia Nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine assessment and treatment profiles of adolescent patients with anorexia nervosa and eating disorder not otherwise specified who received olanzapine as compared with an untreated matched sample. METHOD: A retrospective, matched-groups comparison study was completed. Medical files of 86 female patients treated in the eating disorder program at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario were examined. Patients treated with olanzapine were initially identified through chart review and then matched to a diagnosis, age, and, when possible, treatment group that served as the active comparator. Weight gain was examined in a sample of 22 inpatients. RESULTS: Patients treated with olanzapine displayed greater evidence of psychopathology and medical compromise at the time of first assessment compared with those not treated. Rate of weight gain was not statistically different between groups when olanzapine was started during inpatient admissions. Medication effect on eating disorder cognitions could not be assessed given the presence of multiple confounders relating to treatment. Notable side effects included sedation and dyslipidemia in 56% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite our best attempts at matching olanzapine-treated subjects with a control sample, analysis revealed significant differences between groups, suggesting greater illness severity in those augmented with olanzapine. Given these inherent differences, we were unable to draw any firm conclusions regarding the potential efficacy of olanzapine. Factors associated with the prescription of adjunctive pharmacotherapy in this cohort appear to be linked to illness severity, acuity, and associated comorbidity. The observed side-effect profile indicates the need for more consistent predrug screening and for closer monitoring during treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".