Adapted motivational interviewing for women with binge eating disorder: A randomized controlled trial.
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
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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