Rapid improvements in emotion regulation predict intensive treatment outcome for patients with bulimia nervosa and purging disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rapid and substantial behavior change (RSBC) early in cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for eating disorders is the strongest known predictor of treatment outcome. Rapid change in other clinically relevant variables may also be important. This study examined whether rapid change in emotion regulation predicted treatment outcomes, beyond the effects of RSBC. METHOD: Participants were diagnosed with bulimia nervosa or purging disorder (N = 104) and completed ≥6 weeks of CBT-based intensive treatment. Hierarchical regression models were used to test whether rapid change in emotion regulation variables predicted posttreatment outcomes, defined in three ways: (a) binge/purge abstinence; (b) cognitive eating disorder psychopathology; and (c) depression symptoms. Baseline psychopathology and emotion regulation difficulties and RSBC were controlled for. RESULTS: After controlling for baseline variables and RSBC, rapid improvement in access to emotion regulation strategies made significant unique contributions to the prediction of posttreatment binge/purge abstinence, cognitive psychopathology of eating disorders, and depression symptoms. DISCUSSION: Individuals with eating disorders who rapidly improve their belief that they can effectively modulate negative emotions are more likely to achieve a variety of good treatment outcomes. This supports the formal inclusion of emotion regulation skills early in CBT, and encouraging patient beliefs that these strategies are helpful.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".