Preliminary Evidence for the Off-Label Treatment of Bulimia Nervosa With Psychostimulants: Six Case Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychostimulants have been assessed in bulimia nervosa patients with comorbid attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but few studies have examined the impact of psychostimulants on bulimia nervosa patients without comorbid ADHD. The aim of this study was to examine psychostimulants as a potential treatment for bulimia nervosa and to assess the concern of weight loss, given the medication's appetite-suppressing effects. This retrospective study describes 6 case reports of outpatients who were prescribed a psychostimulant specifically for their bulimia nervosa. The number of binge/purge days per months and body mass index were assessed. All patients demonstrated reductions in the number of binge/purge days per month, and 1 patient experienced total remission of bulimic symptoms. Minor fluctuations in weight were observed, but no clinically significant reductions in weight were noted. These findings support the need for clinical trials to examine the efficacy and safety of this potential treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".