Pilot study of a graded exercise program for the treatment of anorexia nervosa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a graded exercise program used in the treatment of anorexia nervosa improves quality of life and does not decrease the rate of gain of body fat. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with outcome measures: change in percent body fat, body mass index (BMI), and Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36-item Quality of Life questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifteen females and one male meeting the DSM-IV criteria for the diagnosis of anorexia nervosa were randomized. There was no difference in change in BMI or percent body fat at 3 months. Quality of life outcomes improved from baseline in the experimental group compared with the control group. However, this difference was not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Incorporation of a graded exercise program may increase compliance with treatment, but it did not reduce the short-term rate of gain of body fat or BMI. Longer studies with more subjects are necessary to determine the usefulness of a graded exercise program in anorexia 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it