Health professionals' familiarity and experience with providing clinical care for pediatric avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study explored the experience and familiarity of pediatric health professionals with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), and assessed the application of diagnostic criteria in a series of clinical vignettes. METHOD: Pediatric health professionals were invited to complete an online survey. Data from 93 health professionals from medical and allied health roles who completed the survey were analyzed. RESULTS: Respondents providing care for pediatric feeding/eating disorders were more likely to report familiarity with ARFID than those not typically providing care for feeding/eating disorders. Clinicians who had provided care for pediatric ARFID reported more confidence in clinical management of ARFID than did those who had not yet provided care for ARFID, though there were overall relatively low levels of confidence in providing care for ARFID. Respondents to the clinical vignettes were more likely to confer a diagnosis of ARFID when there were symptoms of both psychosocial impairment and weight loss than when there was psychosocial impairment alone. DISCUSSION: The results suggest variability in current application of diagnostic criteria for ARFID, low confidence in clinical management of ARFID, and ambiguity in clinicians' judgments regarding whether psychosocial impairment is sufficient to meet a diagnosis of ARFID.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".