Predictors of Treatment Outcome in an Early Intervention Eating Disorder Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine baseline predictors of treatment completion and clinical outcomes in 16 to 25-year-olds referred for early intervention for a recent-onset eating disorder (ED). METHOD: Participants (n = 228; 93% female, 63% White British) were drawn from the FREED-Up study, which evaluated First episode Rapid Early intervention for EDs (FREED) in England across 2017-2018. Measures were completed at baseline and 3-, 6- and 12-months. Generalized estimating equations were used to identify baseline predictors of treatment completion and symptom remission by 12-months. Linear mixed models were used to identify baseline predictors of change in global eating disorder examination-questionnaire (EDE-Q) scores, binge eating, purging and BMI (anorexia nervosa [AN] only) over 12-months. Possible predictors included baseline ED symptoms, depression, anxiety, stress, psychosocial impairment, expressed emotion from close others, functioning against personalized goals, age, ethnicity, duration of illness, waiting times and BMI. RESULTS: There were no significant predictors of treatment completion. Lower stress at baseline predicted increased likelihood of symptom remission by 12 months. Lower purging and psychosocial impairment at baseline predicted lower Global EDE-Q scores over the following 12 months; lower purging predicted lower rates of binge eating; and lower Global EDE-Q scores, binge eating and assessment waiting times predicted lower rates of purging. Higher purging at baseline was associated with higher BMI in AN. DISCUSSION: This study provides new data on predictors of treatment outcomes in an early intervention ED sample. In addition to ED symptoms and waiting times, psychosocial impairment and stress warrant consideration as factors that may influence treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".