Effects of mealtime assistance in the nutritional rehabilitation of eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine the effects of meal supervision, provided by health professionals, volunteers or family members, on anthropometric, nutritional, psychological, and behavioural outcomes in patients with eating disorders (EDs). METHODS: The present systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The last search was conducted in three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane library). Inclusion criteria considered paediatric and adult patients suffering from EDs, regardless of ethnicity, and treated in different therapeutic settings. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) adapted for cross-sectional studies and Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomised trials. RESULTS: 3282 articles were retrieved, out of which only 6 met the eligibility criteria. A marked heterogeneity in definitions and approaches to supervised mealtime was observed. This variability emerged in the methodologies used in the supervised meal, and in the reference values for the outcome measures that were used, such as the analysis of different parameters. Based on these observations, mealtime assistance provided to patients with EDs shows an overall positive effect on eating behaviour and dysfunctional attitudes. Future research should be prompted to provide a thorough definition of a structured procedure for meal assistance to be potentially and systematically included in the nutritional rehabilitation protocols for patients with EDs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV systematic reviews of uncontrolled trials.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".