<i>Cognitive-Behavioural Treatment</i>For Women Who Binge Eat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A dietitian-administered, shortened form of the Apple and Agras cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) method was evaluated in a group setting to determine its effect on improving obese women's self-esteem and reducing binge-eating behaviours, depression, and negative body image. METHODS: Participants were recruited through newspaper and radio advertisements. Respondents who met study selection criteria were randomly assigned to either a CBT group (n=13) or a delayed group (D-CBT) (n=9). The treatment was administered over six weekly sessions to the CBT group, and then twice weekly over three weeks to the D-CBT group. Two measures of bingeing behaviour (severity and frequency), three measures of mood (depression, body image, and self-esteem), and body weight were assessed. RESULTS: The intervention did not result in any changes in body weight. There were statistically significant and clinically important changes after treatment (p<0.05) for all five measures. Binge-eating severity and frequency decreased, depression decreased, body image improved, and self-esteem improved. All changes were greater in the six-week treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: The dietitian-administered, group setting CBT program is effective for reducing binge eating and improving emotional state in obese women.
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) | 0.004 | 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".