Open Trial of Family-Based Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa for Transition Age Youth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study conducted an open trial of a manualized adaptation to Family-Based Treatment for Transition Age Youth (FBT-TAY) for Anorexia Nervosa (AN). The aims were: (1) determine the acceptability of FBT for TAY; and, (2) establish preliminary effect sizes for the impact of FBT-TAY on eating disorder behaviour and weight restoration. METHOD: Twenty-six participants across two paediatric and one adult hospital site were recruited to participate. Participants completed the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) at the start of treatment, the end-of-treatment, and three-month follow-up. RESULTS: FBT-TAY is an acceptable and feasible treatment to all study therapists as evidenced by their fidelity to the model. FBT-TAY is a feasible and acceptable intervention to transition age youth, given only 27.27% chose treatment as usual over FBT-TAY. Participants presented significant improvement at end-of-treatment and three-months post-treatment (p < .001; ES = 0.34) from baseline on the EDE-Q Global Score. Participants also achieved and maintained weight restoration at the end-of-treatment and three-months post-treatment when compared to baseline (p < .0001, ES = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: FBT-TAY, the first manualized AN treatment for TAY, demonstrated feasibility and acceptability with therapists and participants as well as improvement for participants in EDE-Q global score and weight. Given the current dearth of effective treatments for TAY with AN, FBT-TAY is a promising adaptation of FBT. A larger clinical trial with a 12-month follow-up is recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".