The Maudsley model of anorexia nervosa treatment for adolescents and emerging adults: A multi‐centre cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was examining the efficacy of the Maudsley Model of Anorexia Nervosa Treatment for Adolescents and Young Adults (MANTRa) compared to individual psychotherapy that can be considered as standard in Austria (TAU-O). METHOD: In this cohort study, 92 patients between 13 and 21 years suffering from full-syndrome, atypical or weight-restored anorexia nervosa (AN) received either 24-34 individual MANTRa sessions (n = 45) or TAU-O (n = 47). Outcome variables were age- and sex-related BMI, eating disorder and comorbid psychopathology at 6-, 12- and 18-month post baseline as well as acceptability of treatment and therapeutic alliance. RESULTS: Both treatments resulted in significant improvements in age- and sex related BMI and reductions in eating disorder and comorbid psychopathology over time with significant differences between groups in favour of MANTRa. The percentage of participants with fully remitted AN was significantly higher in the MANTRa group compared to TAU-O at 18-month follow-up (MANTRa: 46% vs. TAU-O: 16%, p = 0.006). Satisfaction with both treatments was high. CONCLUSIONS: MANTRa is an effective treatment programme for adolescents and young adults with AN. Randomised controlled trials comparing MANTRa with existing treatments are necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03535714).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".