MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134770472 · doi:10.1001/jama.295.22.2605

Fluoxetine after weight restoration in anorexia nervosa: a randomized controlled trial.

2006· article· en· W2134770472 on OpenAlexaffabout
B. Timothy Walsh, Allan S. Kaplan, Evelyn Attia, Marion P. Olmsted, Michael K. Parides, Jacqueline C. Carter, Kathleen M. Pike, Michael J. Devlin, D. Blake Woodside, Christina A. Roberto, Wendi Rockert

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsFluoxetinePlaceboMedicineAnorexia nervosaBody mass indexHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePsychiatrySurgeryEating disordersConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Antidepressant medication is frequently prescribed for patients with anorexia nervosa. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluoxetine can promote recovery and prolong time-to-relapse among patients with anorexia nervosa following weight restoration. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. From January 2000 until May 2005, 93 patients with anorexia nervosa received intensive inpatient or day-program treatment at the New York State Psychiatric Institute or Toronto General Hospital. Participants regained weight to a minimum body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of 19.0 and were then eligible to participate in the randomized phase of the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine or placebo and were treated for up to 1 year as outpatients in double-blind fashion. All patients also received individual cognitive behavioral therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were time-to-relapse and the proportion of patients successfully completing 1 year of treatment. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were assigned to fluoxetine and 44 to placebo. Similar percentages of patients assigned to fluoxetine and to placebo maintained a body mass index of at least 18.5 and remained in the study for 52 weeks (fluoxetine, 26.5%; placebo, 31.5%; P = .57). In a Cox proportional hazards analysis, with prerandomization body mass index, site, and diagnostic subtype as covariates, there was no significant difference between fluoxetine and placebo in time-to-relapse (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.65-2.01; P = .64). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate any benefit from fluoxetine in the treatment of patients with anorexia nervosa following weight restoration. Future efforts should focus on developing new models to understand the persistence of this illness and on exploring new psychological and pharmacological treatment approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00288574.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations392
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207