Treatment Needs and Rates of Mental Health Comorbidity in Adolescent Patients With ARFID
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide a descriptive overview of a single-center ARFID-specific pilot clinic that sought to better understand the specific needs of patients with ARFID including rates of comorbidities, and to gain insight into treatment requirements. A retrospective cohort study was completed on patients meeting criteria for ARFID admitted to a specialized pilot clinic within a tertiary care hospital. Over an 18 month period, a total of 26 patients were assessed and had follow-up data for a 12 month period. Patients presented with heterogeneous manifestations of ARFID and high rates of comorbid mood and anxiety disorders were noted. Treatment plans were tailored to meet individual needs at assessment and over the treatment period. A multidisciplinary approach was most often administered, including a combination of individual therapy, family therapy, medical monitoring, and prescribed medications. Only 30% of patients were treated exclusively by therapists on the eating disorder team. The experiences gained from this pilot study highlight the need for specialized resources for assessment and treatment of patients with ARFID, the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to treatment, and the necessity of utilization of ARFID-specific measures for program evaluation purposes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it