Adapted motivational interviewing for women with binge eating disorder: A randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this randomized controlled trial, 108 women with binge-eating disorder (BED) recruited from the community were assigned to either an adapted motivational interviewing (AMI) group (1 individual AMI session + self-help handbook) or control group (handbook only). They were phoned 4, 8, and 16 weeks following the initial session to assess binge eating and associated symptoms (depression, self-esteem, quality of life). Postintervention, the AMI group participants were more confident than those in the control group in their ability to change binge eating. Although both groups reported improved binge eating, mood, self-esteem, and general quality of life 16 weeks following the intervention, the AMI group improved to a greater extent. A greater proportion of women in the AMI group abstained from binge eating (27.8% vs. 11.1%) and no longer met the binge frequency criterion of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) for BED (87.0% vs. 57.4%). AMI may constitute a brief, effective intervention for BED and associated symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".