Retrospective analysis of hypophosphatemia rates and other clinical parameters in patients with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To retrospectively assess medical services of a specialist inpatient eating disorders (EDs) unit. Method We retrospectively evaluated clinical parameters of 288 inpatients classified as ‘moderately’ or ‘significantly’ medically compromised between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2019. Results We analysed 288 patients (mean age 32.5 [SD = 11.4] years, 96% women, 76% with anorexia nervosa). Average length of stay was 38.4 (SD = 28.4) days. Average admission body mass index (BMI) was 14.8 (SD = 1.8) kg/m 2 , and 16.1 (SD = 1.9) kg/m 2 at 4 weeks. At admission, 82% of patients were considered significantly medically compromised, while 6% were deemed moderately compromised. Only 5% of patients required transfer to intensive care unit. Prevalence of hypophosphatemia was 17.7%; rates did not increase significantly between years despite more assertive re‐feeding processes. There was no association between risk classification at admission and change in BMI at 4 weeks ( F (2,166) = 0.588, p = 0.557). BMI at admission was found to be significantly associated with clinical outcome ( β = 0.92, p < 0.001). Discussion Hypophosphatemia rates did not increase despite more assertive re‐feeding over 3 years. Our results provide support for a model of treatment that simultaneously addresses the medical and psychiatric sequelae of patients with severe EDs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".