Rapid refeeding in anorexia nervosa: A dialectic balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of our new rapid refeeding protocol on patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) in our Eating Disorders Program. We hypothesize that the new protocol would lead to a more rapid weight gain and a shorter length of stay, with no effect on medical complications or program completion. METHOD: and a diagnosis of AN between 2007 and 2020; N = 326 patients. Main outcomes measured were rate of weight gain and length of stay. Safety indicators included electrolyte disturbances and supplementation required, complications including refeeding syndrome and completion of the program. A p value <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Total length of stay was 21 days shorter for patients on the rapid refeeding protocol compared to the traditional refeeding protocol. Patients on the new protocol gained 0.21 more kg/week compared to patients on the old protocol. There was no difference in completion rates between programs. Electrolyte imbalances were mild to moderate and easily treated with oral electrolyte supplementation. There were no deaths or cases of refeeding syndrome with either protocol. DISCUSSION: This is the first Canadian study to assess the effectiveness and safety of rapid refeeding in an adult population. Rapid refeeding protocols can be safely administered and are cost effective. Shorter hospital admissions are desirable to minimize possible regression and dependency on inpatient services and positively impacts patients' quality of life. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study advances the idea that rapid refeeding in patients with anorexia nervosa can be administered safely and effectively with close medical monitoring. In addition, rapid refeeding leads to shorter hospital stays, with a cost-savings to the health system. Shorter admissions are desirable to minimize possible regression and dependency on inpatient services and also positively impacts patients' quality of life.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".