Gender differences in clinical trials of binge eating disorder: An analysis of aggregated data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine gender differences in baseline and outcome variables in clinical trials for binge eating disorder (BED). METHOD: Data from 11 randomized controlled psychosocial treatment studies were aggregated (N = 1,325: 208 male, 1,117 female). Baseline and outcome symptoms were assessed via the interview and questionnaire versions of the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE). Multilevel analyses were conducted investigating gender differences at baseline and posttreatment, defined as EDE scores, objective binge episode (OBE) reduction, and OBE remission at termination. RESULTS: Few males from low socioeconomic status or minority groups participated in the outcome studies. Males reported significantly lower EDE global, shape, weight, and eating concerns at baseline. No main effects of gender were found in treatment outcome scores when controlling for baseline differences; however, baseline EDE global score (which showed gender differences at baseline) and OBEs directly predicted outcome for both males and females. A significant interaction between gender, treatment length, and shape/weight concerns indicated that males with lower shape/weight concerns achieved OBE remission in shorter treatments, whereas men with high shape/weight concerns and women with either high or low shape/weight concerns were more likely to achieve OBE remission in treatments of longer duration. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest BED treatment studies must improve their recruitment of men and appeal to men with lower shape/weight concerns. Additionally, longer term treatments, although more efficacious for women and men with more severe shape/weight concerns, may not be necessary for men with low shape/weight concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.116 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".