MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013773330 · doi:10.1002/eat.23269

Weight suppression and weight maintenance following treatment of anorexia nervosa

2020· article· en· W3013773330 on OpenAlexaff
Blair Uniacke, Evelyn Attia, Allan S. Kaplan, B. Timothy Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsWeight lossAnorexia nervosaBody mass indexWeight changeBody weightMaintenance therapyWeight gainFluoxetinePlaceboMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineObesityEating disordersPsychiatryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The value of weight suppression (WS) in predicting the course of anorexia nervosa (AN) is uncertain. The objective of this study was to determine, using data from a previously published study, whether patients who remain weight suppressed following restoration to a minimally normal weight are at greater risk for relapse. METHOD: Following weight restoration, 93 women with AN were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine or placebo along with cognitive behavioral therapy for 1 year. WS (highest adult weight minus current weight), body mass index (BMI), and their interaction were assessed as predictors of change in weight over the first 28 days, of successful weight maintenance at 6 and 12 months, and of time to relapse. RESULTS: Neither WS nor its interaction with BMI predicted successful weight maintenance at 6 and 12 months, time to relapse, or weight change over the first 28 days following discharge. DISCUSSION: This study found that WS does not substantially impact the likelihood of successful weight maintenance or time to relapse following restoration to a minimally normal weight in AN.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207