A systematic review of approaches to refeeding in patients with anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of weight restoration for recovery in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN), we examined approaches to refeeding in adolescents and adults across treatment settings. METHODS: Systematic review of PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Clinical Trials databases (1960-2015) using terms refeeding, weight restoration, hypophosphatemia, anorexia nervosa, anorexia, and anorexic. RESULTS: Of 948 screened abstracts, 27 met these inclusion criteria: participants had AN; reproducible refeeding approach; weight gain, hypophosphatemia or cognitive/behavioral outcomes. Twenty-six studies (96%) were observational/prospective or retrospective and performed in hospital. Twelve studies published since 2010 examined approaches starting with higher calories than currently recommended (≥1400 kcal/d). The evidence supports 8 conclusions: 1) In mildly and moderately malnourished patients, lower calorie refeeding is too conservative; 2) Both meal-based approaches or combined nasogastric+meals can administer higher calories; 3) Higher calorie refeeding has not been associated with increased risk for the refeeding syndrome under close medical monitoring with electrolyte correction; 4) In severely malnourished inpatients, there is insufficient evidence to change the current standard of care; 5) Parenteral nutrition is not recommended; 6) Nutrient compositions within recommended ranges are appropriate; 7) More research is needed in non-hospital settings; 8) The long-term impact of different approaches is unknown; DISCUSSION: Findings support higher calorie approaches to refeeding in mildly and moderately malnourished patients under close medical monitoring, however the safety, long-term outcomes, and feasibility outside of hospital have not been established. Further research is also needed on refeeding approaches in severely malnourished patients, methods of delivery, nutrient compositions and treatment settings.
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 | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".