Relative efficacy of a 4‐day versus a 5‐day day hospital program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Day hospital treatment has demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of eating disorders, but no information regarding the required intensity of treatment is currently available. The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term effectiveness of a 4-day versus a 5-day day hospital program. METHODS: The study followed a sequential cohort design. Four hundred sixty-eight patients attended a 5-day program between 1985 and 1994 and 288 patients attended a 4-day program between 1995 and 2000. Weight, binging, and vomiting frequencies and psychological functioning were assessed at the beginning and at the end of treatment. RESULTS: The two programs were equally effective in helping underweight patients to gain weight. However, the 5-day program was associated with higher abstinence rates for binging and vomiting and with better psychological functioning at the end of treatment. The 4-day program was more cost-effective when symptom change was considered as a percentage reduction per treatment day. DISCUSSION: Overall, the 5-day program was both more effective and more costly. The relative long-term outcome of the two programs is a critical question and these data are currently being collected.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".