MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137692543 · doi:10.1186/2050-2974-1-12

Resumption of menses in anorexia nervosa during a course of family-based treatment

2013· article· en· W2137692543 on OpenAlexaff
Julianne P. Faust, Andrea B. Goldschmidt, Kristen Anderson, Catherine Glunz, Melanie Brown, Katharine L. Loeb, Debra K. Katzman, Daniel Le Grange

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eating Disorders · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAnorexia nervosaPsychosocialPsychopathologyEating disordersMedicineWeight gainAmenorrheaWeight lossMoodObesityPsychologyPsychiatryBody weightInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The resumption of menses (ROM) is considered an important clinical marker in weight restoration for patients with anorexia nervosa (AN). The purpose of this study was to examine ROM in relation to expected body weight (EBW) and psychosocial markers in adolescents with AN. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review at The University of Chicago Eating Disorders Program from September 2001 to September 2011 (N = 225 females with AN). Eighty-four adolescents (Mean age = 15.1, SD = 2.2) with a DSM-IV diagnosis of AN, presenting with secondary amenorrhea were identified. All participants had received a course of outpatient family-based treatment (FBT), i.e., ~20 sessions over 12 months. Weight and menstrual status were tracked at each therapy session throughout treatment. The primary outcome measures were weight (percent of expected for sex, age and height), and ROM. RESULTS: Mean percent EBW at baseline was 82.0 (SD = 6.5). ROM was reported by 67.9% of participants (57/84), on average at 94.9 (SD = 9.3) percent EBW, and after having completed an average of 13.5 (SD = 10.7) FBT sessions (~70% of standard FBT). Compared to participants without ROM by treatment completion, those with ROM had significantly higher baseline Eating Disorder Examination Global scores (p = .004) as well as Shape Concern (p < .008) and Restraint (p < .002) subscale scores. No other differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that ROM occur at weights close to the reference norms for percent EBW, and that high pre-treatment eating disorder psychopathology is associated with ROM. Future research will be important to better understand these differences and their implications for the treatment of adolescents with AN.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207