Do children with recurrent abdominal pain grow up to become adolescents who control their weight by fasting? Results from a <scp>UK</scp> population‐based cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gastrointestinal (GI) problems are common in eating disorders, but it is unclear whether these problems predate the onset of disordered eating. Recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) is the most prevalent GI problem of childhood, and this study aimed to explore longitudinal associations between persistent RAP (at ages 7 and 9) and fasting for weight control at 16. METHOD: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a UK population cohort of children. Childhood RAP was reported by mothers and defined as RAP 5+ (5 pain episodes in the past year) in our primary analysis, and RAP 3+ (3 pain episodes) in our sensitivity analysis. Fasting for weight control was reported by adolescents at 16. We used logistic regression models to examine associations, with adjustments for potential confounders. RESULTS: After adjustments, we found no association between childhood RAP 5+ and adolescent fasting for weight control at 16 (OR 1.30 (95% Confidence Intervals [CI] 0.87, 1.94) p = .197). However, we did find an association between RAP 3+ and later fasting, in the fully adjusted model (OR 1.50 [95% CI 1.16, 1.94] p = .002), and after excluding those with pre-existing anxiety (OR 1.52 [95% CI 1.17, 1.97] p = .002). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest a possible independent contribution of RAP to later risk of fasting for weight control, and RAP should be enquired about in the assessment of eating disorders. However, frequency of childhood abdominal pain (as captured by ALSPAC) may be less important to long-term outcomes than functional impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".