MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938944598 · doi:10.1002/edm2.67

Assessing the clinical utility of the diabetes eating problem survey‐revised (DEPS‐R) in adolescents with type 1 diabetes

2019· article· en· W2938944598 on OpenAlexafffund
Brianna Ryman, Jenna MacIsaac, Tracy Robinson, Michael R. Miller, Patricia Gallego

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrinology Diabetes & Metabolism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineType 1 diabetesType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusReferralClinical psychologyPsychiatryFamily medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Objective Eating disorders are prevalent among adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We examined the clinical utility of the Diabetes Eating Problem Survey‐Revised (DEPS‐R), a brief self‐report questionnaire developed for patients with T1D, to identify at‐risk adolescents. We aimed to determine whether a positive DEPS‐R screen was predictive of a formal diagnosis of an eating disorder as per the DSM‐V. In addition, we assessed whether other variables including psychosocial characteristics and diabetes conflict were associated with an abnormal DEPS‐R screen. Methods Cross‐sectional study of 116 T1D adolescents aged 12‐17 years. All participants completed the DEPS‐R screening; both participants and parents completed a questionnaire addressing psychosocial characteristics/conflict around diabetes management. Clinical variables were obtained from participant charts. Differences were examined between positive and negative DEPS‐R groups. Adolescents who screened positive were offered a referral to a specialized eating disorder team for further assessment. Results From 116 participants (mean age ± SD = 14.6 years ± 1.56), 21% (24/116) scored positive for DEPS‐R More females than males had abnormal DEPS‐R (75% vs 25%, P = 0.001). Those with positive DEPS‐R score had higher HbA1c% (mean = 9.3 ± 1.3 vs 8.3 ± 1.2, P = 0.001). Positive DEPS‐R group had higher conflict score for diabetes management in both parents’ and children's assessments (both ps < 0.001). In regression analysis, being female (OR males = 0.07, 95%CI: 0.010‐0.46, P = 0.006), older (OR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.16‐3.48, P = 0.040) and > child‐reported conflict (OR = 1.78, 95%CI: 1.02‐3.11, P = 0.044) were predictors of an abnormal DEPS‐R score. Conclusion The DEPS‐R score is a useful clinical tool for identifying T1D adolescents at risk for disordered eating behaviour, but has a low positive predictive value (PPV) for identifying adolescents who meet diagnostic criteria for an eating disorder. Female gender, suboptimal diabetes control and increased conflict in diabetes management are associated with an abnormal DEPS‐R score.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrinology Diabetes & MetabolismSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207