Eating Disorder Treatment Centers: AI Visibility Market Discovery Index

Benchmark Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which eating disorder treatment center leads the October 2026 benchmark by valid recommendation coverage?
• Which brands recorded the largest recommendation coverage increases beyond normal month-to-month variation?

The Emily Program leads the Eating Disorder Treatment Centers benchmark in October 2026 with 18.5% valid recommendation coverage. Monte Nido follows at 13.9%, a gap of 4.6 points to the next-closest brand. Alsana holds 12.3% and Rogers Behavioral Health 10.8%.

October 2026 brought significant movement to the category. Monte Nido recorded the largest coverage increase, rising from 2.2% in July 2026 to 13.9% in October 2026, a move of 11.7 points beyond normal month-to-month variation. Rogers Behavioral Health also rose significantly, from 2.2% in July 2026 to 10.8% in October 2026, a move of 8.6 points. Center for Discovery rose significantly from 0.0% in July 2026 to 6.2% in October 2026, a move of 6.2 points. No tracked brand recorded a significant decline since the baseline month.

ERC Pathlight's position shifted sharply within the series. After leading the category at 23.5% in September 2026, its valid recommendation coverage fell to 6.2% in October 2026, a decline of 17.3 points from the prior month. Against the July 2026 baseline of 6.6%, the brand's October 2026 coverage was essentially flat, down 0.4 points.

Within the full July-to-October series, Monte Nido, Rogers Behavioral Health, and Center for Discovery each moved beyond normal variation. Alsana and The Renfrew Center each recorded valid recommendation coverage increases in three consecutive months, though their cumulative movement remained within normal variation. The Emily Program recorded increases in two consecutive months.

The benchmark began with 320 prompt-surface observations in October 2026 and produced 65 qualified observations after qualification.

Current Benchmark at a Glance

Qualified surface breadth counts the canonical AI surface families with at least one qualified observation. The six canonical families are ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode.

For the strategic interpretation of this benchmark, read CiteWorks Studio's analysis of How AI Search Is Recommending Eating Disorder Treatment Centers

Research Scope and Qualification

Questions This Section Answers

• How many prompt-surface observations produced the qualified benchmark observations in October 2026?

The public benchmark is narrower than the raw collection universe by design.

Brand-level percentages use the qualified observations as the public denominator, not the raw collection. Link: AI Visibility Market Discovery Methodology.

Current Brand Standings

Questions This Section Answers

• How do the leading eating disorder treatment centers differ across presence rate, valid recommendation coverage, and rank-one rate?
• Which brands appear in the top three most often without leading?

How to Read the Standings

• Presence rate: The share of qualified observations in which the brand is mentioned at all.
• Valid recommendation coverage: The share of qualified observations in which the brand receives a valid recommendation.
• Top-three rate: The share of qualified observations in which the brand appears among the top three recommended options.
• Rank-one rate: The share of qualified observations in which the brand is recommended first.
• Net sentiment: Positive minus negative sentiment among mentions, divided by total mentions.

For formulas and denominator rules, see AI Visibility Market Discovery Metric Definitions.

Recommendation Coverage Movement

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brand recorded the largest coverage movement since the July 2026 baseline?
• Why did ERC Pathlight's coverage fall in October 2026 despite leading in September?

October 2026 followed a volatile September. ERC Pathlight's coverage fell from 23.5% in September 2026 to 6.2% in October 2026, a decline of 17.3 points from the prior month. The Emily Program's coverage rose from 16.2% in September 2026 to 18.5% in October 2026, a move of 2.3 points. Monte Nido rose from 10.3% in September 2026 to 13.9% in October 2026, a move of 3.6 points. Alsana rose from 10.3% in September 2026 to 12.3% in October 2026, a move of 2.0 points.

Largest Increase: Monte Nido

Monte Nido's valid recommendation coverage rose from 2.2% in July 2026 to 13.9% in October 2026, an increase of 11.7 points beyond normal month-to-month variation. The brand's coverage increased in two consecutive months, from 10.3% in September 2026 to 13.9% in October 2026. Monte Nido's presence rate was 58.5% in October 2026, down from 72.5% in July 2026. Its top-three rate rose from 1.1% in July 2026 to 4.6% in October 2026. The brand was not recommended first in any qualified observation in October 2026, unchanged from July 2026.

The September-to-October Shift: ERC Pathlight

ERC Pathlight's valid recommendation coverage fell from 23.5% in September 2026 to 6.2% in October 2026, a decline of 17.3 points from the prior month, beyond normal month-to-month variation. Against the July 2026 baseline of 6.6%, October 2026 coverage was down 0.4 points, within normal variation. The brand's presence rate fell from 79.4% in September 2026 to 24.6% in October 2026. Its rank-one rate rose from 2.9% in September 2026 to 3.1% in October 2026.

Category Leader: The Emily Program

The Emily Program held the category lead in October 2026 at 18.5% valid recommendation coverage, up from 16.2% in September 2026 and 7.7% in July 2026. The brand's top-three rate rose from 5.5% in July 2026 to 10.8% in October 2026, and its rank-one rate rose from 2.2% to 7.7%. The Emily Program's coverage increased in two consecutive months.

Alsana and The Renfrew Center each also recorded coverage increases in three consecutive months, though their cumulative movement since July 2026 remained within normal month-to-month variation.

Recommendation Placement Snapshot

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands convert recommendation coverage into rank-one placements?
• How can two brands with similar coverage have different first-position rates?

Coverage alone does not show how prominently a brand is recommended. The Emily Program led in both coverage and rank-one placement in October 2026. Alsana recorded 12.3% valid recommendation coverage with a 12.3% top-three rate but only a 1.5% rank-one rate.

Close coverage can still hide different first-position rates.

Buyer-Intent Distribution

All qualified observations in both months fell into the Brand Recommendation class.

The current public series measures brand-recommendation discovery and does not yet contain qualified observations in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison classes.

Historical Measurement Record

Questions This Section Answers

• Who led each monthly measurement, and did the coverage leader stay the same?
• Which brand consistently produced the largest coverage movement across the series?

This is an evergreen benchmark URL. New measurements are added to the same report.

The coverage leader changed three times across four monthly measurements.

Top 10 Cited Domains

Questions This Section Answers

• Which domains are most cited in AI responses about eating disorder treatment centers?
• Which treatment center brands own domains in the top 10 cited sources?

Across all AI platform responses in this measurement period, 2,212 citations were observed across 602 unique domains.

Citations are broadly distributed across the information environment, with the top 10 domains accounting for roughly 38% of all citations and no single domain exceeding 10% share. Four tracked brands have their own domains in the top 10: Rogers Behavioral Health (rogersbh.org), Monte Nido (montenido.com), The Emily Program (emilyprogram.com), and The Renfrew Center (renfrewcenter.com). The remaining sources include clinical and research institutions (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), nonprofit advocacy organizations (nationaleatingdisorders.org), a general review and resource site (eatingdisorderhope.com), and major platforms (google.com, youtube.com).

Evidence and Source Layer

The benchmark is built from prompt-level observations that retain the query, AI/search surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and where exposed, citations or attributable evidence sources. Source presence is evidence about the information environment. It is not automatically proof that the source caused the recommendation.

Scope Boundaries

This public benchmark does not measure market share, attributable sales, every possible AI response, organic-search ranking, social mention volume, private or sponsored channels, or causality from a metric movement alone.

About This Benchmark

The LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery Index tracks how AI assistants surface and recommend brands across canonical AI/search surface families including ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. It is a neutral industry benchmark built from real prompt-level observations.

• AI Visibility Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Visibility Market Discovery Metric Definitions
• AI Visibility Market Discovery Research Standards
• Modeled AI Visibility Authority Value

Get a Company-Level Authority Index

The public industry benchmark shows category-level standings. A company-level Authority Index can go deeper.

Get my free AI Company Index