MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326541720 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e318266bbba

Why Do People With Eating Disorders Drop Out From Inpatient Treatment?

2012· article· en· W2326541720 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Pham‐Scottez, Caroline Huas, Fernando Pérez-Díaz, Clémentine Nordon, Snežana M. Divac, Roland Dardennes, Mario Speranza, Frédéric Rouillon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDropout (neural networks)Anorexia nervosaPersonalityPsychologyClinical psychologyComorbidityPersonality disordersEating disordersPersonality Assessment InventoryPsychiatryTemperament and Character InventoryBig Five personality traits

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dropout rates from inpatient treatment for eating disorders are very high and have a negative impact on outcome. The purpose of this study was to identify personality factors predictive of dropout from hospitalization. A total of 64 adult patients with anorexia nervosa consecutively hospitalized in a specialized unit were included; 19 patients dropped out. The dropout group and the completer group were compared for demographic variables, clinical features, personality dimensions, and personality disorders. There was no link between clinical features and dropout, and among demographic variables, only age was associated with dropout. Personality factors, comorbidity with a personality disorder and Self-transcendence dimension, were statistically predictive of premature termination of hospitalization. In a multivariate model, these two factors remain significant. Personality traits (Temperament and Character Inventory personality dimension and comorbid personality disorder) are significantly associated with dropout from inpatient treatment for anorexia nervosa. Implications for clinical practice, to diminish the dropout rate, will be discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207