MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147588750 · doi:10.1002/erv.2179

Bone Mass Eight Years After Treatment for Adolescent‐Onset Anorexia Nervosa

2012· article· en· W2147588750 on OpenAlexaff
Inger Halvorsen, Dagmar Platou, Arne Høiseth

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Eating Disorders Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsOsteoporosis Canada
FundersEkstraStiftelsen Helse og Rehabilitering (Stiftelsen Dam)
KeywordsAnorexia nervosaOsteopeniaMedicineOsteoporosisBone mineralAmenorrheaBone densityPeak bone massPediatricsEating disordersPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to study long-term bone mineral development in former patients with an onset of anorexia nervosa during childhood and adolescence. METHODS: Bone mineral density (BMD) in lumbar spine and total hip was measured in 39 female participants (mean age = 23.1 years, SD 3.5) an average of 8.1 (±3.3) years after treatment start. RESULTS: At follow-up, seven participants (17.9%) still suffered from an eating disorder. Mean BMD in the former patients was within the normal range in the hip but significantly reduced in the spine. Fourteen (36%) of the participants had osteopenia, and three (8%) had osteoporosis in the spine and/or hip. Amenorrhea for more than two years was associated with reduced BMD in the spine, whereas low weight at follow-up was associated with low BMD in both the spine and the hip. CONCLUSION: A large minority of these former patients had low bone mass in young adulthood. In accordance with other studies, our findings support the importance of weight restoration for future bone health in young patients with 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Eating Disorders ReviewSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207