Characteristics of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A “New Disorder” in DSM-5
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the DSM-5 diagnosis of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) in children and adolescents with poor eating not associated with body image concerns. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study of 8-18-year-olds, using a diagnostic algorithm, compared all cases with ARFID presenting to seven adolescent-medicine eating disorder programs in 2010 to a randomly selected sample with anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN). Demographic and clinical information were recorded. RESULTS: Of 712 individuals studied, 98 (13.8%) met ARFID criteria. Patients with ARFID were younger than those with AN (n = 98) or BN (n = 66), (12.9 vs. 15.6 vs. 16.5 years), had longer durations of illness (33.3 vs. 14.5 vs. 23.5 months), were more likely to be male (29% vs. 15% vs. 6%), and had a percent median body weight intermediate between those with AN or BN (86.5 vs. 81.0 and 107.5). Patients with ARFID included those with selective (picky) eating since early childhood (28.7%); generalized anxiety (21.4%); gastrointestinal symptoms (19.4%); a history of vomiting/choking (13.2%); and food allergies (4.1%). Patients with ARFID were more likely to have a comorbid medical condition (55% vs. 10% vs. 11%) or anxiety disorder (58% vs. 35% vs. 33%) and were less likely to have a mood disorder (19% vs. 31% vs. 58%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ARFID were demographically and clinically distinct from those with AN or BN. They were significantly underweight with a longer duration of illness and had a greater likelihood of comorbid medical and/or psychiatric symptoms.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it