Psychotherapeutic treatment of eating disorders improve dissociative experiences and impulse regulation but not alexithymia. A case series report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Eating disorders (EDs) are complex conditions associated with disability and a high rate of mortality. Typical characteristics of these diseases are dissociation, alexithymia and impulse dysregulation, all strategies dealing with negative emotions and regulate negative affect and anxiety. Our study aimed to assess the effectiveness of intensive psychological treatment for EDs, with particular reference to the above mentioned clinical characteristics. METHODS: Eight outpatients with eating disorders in psychotherapeutic treatment were evaluated in two stages after one year (T1 and T2), using the Eating Disorder Inventory II, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale 20, and the Dissociative Experiences Scale. RESULTS: Wilcoxon test showed significant reductions in DES score as well as in two subscales of the EDI-2, Impulse Regulation and Body Dissatisfaction (I-EDI2 and BD-EDI2), while alexithymia levels did not show any difference. CONCLUSIONS: We can confirm the effectiveness of psychotherapy in people with EDs as regards dissociative moments, impulsivity and body dissatisfaction. However, alexithymia remains unchanged, possibly because of its deep emotional nature.
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 | 0.000 | 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".