Physical activity and post‐treatment weight trajectory in anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compared an objective measurement of physical activity (PA) in individuals with anorexia nervosa (AN) at low-weight, weight-restored, and post-treatment time points, and also compared PA in AN with that of healthy controls (HC). METHOD: Sixty-one female inpatients with AN wore a novel accelerometer (the IDEEA) which measured PA at three time points: a) low-weight, b) weight-restored, and c) one month post-hospital discharge. Twenty-four HCs wore the IDEEA at one time point. RESULTS: Inpatients with AN became more physically active than they were at low-weight at weight restoration and following treatment discharge. Post-treatment patients with AN were more physically active than HCs during the day and less active at night, which was primarily accounted for by amount of time spent on feet, including standing and walking. Greater time spent on feet during the weight-restoration time point of inpatient treatment was associated with more rapid decrease in BMI over the 12 months following treatment discharge. Fidgeting did not differ between patients and controls, did not change with weight restoration, and did not predict post-treatment weight change. DISCUSSION: Use of a novel accelerometer demonstrated greater PA in AN than in HC. PA following weight restoration in AN, particularly time spent in standing postures, may contribute to weight loss in the year following hospitalization. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2016; 49:482-489).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".