To Go or Not to Go: A Proof of Concept Study Testing Food‐Specific Inhibition Training for Women with Eating and Weight Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inefficient food-specific inhibitory control is a potential mechanism that underlies binge eating in bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder. Go/no-go training tools have been developed to increase inhibitory control over eating impulses. Using a within-subjects design, this study examined whether one session of food-specific go/no-go training, versus general inhibitory control training, modifies eating behaviour. The primary outcome measure was food consumption on a taste test following each training session. Women with bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder had small non-significant reductions in high-calorie food consumption on the taste test following the food-specific compared with the general training. There were no effects on eating disorder symptomatic behaviour (i.e. binge eating/purging) in the 24 h post-training. The training task was found to be acceptable by the clinical groups. More research is needed with larger sample sizes to determine the effectiveness of this training approach for clinical populations. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".