MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400573056 · doi:10.1176/appi.focus.20230043

Psychopharmacology Review for Eating Disorders Among Children, Adolescents, and Adults

2024· review· en· W4400573056 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Couturier

Bibliographic record

VenueFOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBulimia nervosaEating disordersTopiramatePsychiatryAnorexia nervosaBinge-eating disorderAntipsychoticPsychologyStimulantExcellenceMedicineBinge eatingSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Child and adolescent psychiatryClinical psychologyEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the latest research on pharmacological management of eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), binge-eating disorder (BED), and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Recent literature for both youth and adult populations obtained through a PubMed search was included. American Psychiatric Association guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, Canadian practice guidelines, and World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry guidelines were also included. First-line recommendations were focused on therapy because the evidence for medication management of eating disorders continues to be limited. Some limited evidence was found for antipsychotic use for AN, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and topiramate use for BN, and stimulant and topiramate use for BED. Further medication trials are needed to help with complex eating disorder presentations in adults and youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in PsychiatrySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207