Effectiveness of Family-Based Treatment for Pediatric Eating Disorders in a Tertiary Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: A retrospective chart review was conducted to investigate outcomes in children and adolescents who entered family-based treatment (FBT) in a tertiary eating disorders treatment setting that offers treatment across the continuum of care (i.e., outpatient, day treatment, and inpatient services). Method: Chart data were extracted for children and adolescents who received FBT during the study period (2010–2016). Results: A total of 62 individuals were included in the database, 51 of whom (82.3%) were underweight (i.e., less than 95% median body mass index) at FBT start. The majority of the sample (84.3%) who were underweight at FBT admission achieved at least partial weight restoration. A portion of the sample (21%) was discharged to a more intensive treatment (i.e., day treatment or inpatient care). Weight at FBT start was examined as a potential predictor of outcomes; however, those starting FBT at a lower weight were not more likely to require intensive treatment services. Conclusions: Overall, the study supports the effectiveness of FBT in a tertiary care setting, including for those starting FBT at a very low initial body weight (that is, less than 78% median body mass index). Implications for outpatient clinical care of pediatric eating disorders will be discussed. Implications for Impact Statement Family-based treatment (FBT) for pediatric eating disorders appears to be effective in real-world settings outside of controlled research trials. Children and adolescents who start FBT at a very low initial body weight are not more likely than those who start FBT at a higher body weight to require more intensive treatment (e.g., day treatment or inpatient admission). Initial body weight at FBT start does not appear to be a pertinent criterion for determination of FBT suitability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".