MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309324486 · doi:10.1186/s40337-022-00682-y

Adverse childhood experiences and binge-eating disorder in early adolescents

2022· article· en· W4309324486 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Chu, Julia H. Raney, Kyle T. Ganson, Kelsey Wu, Ananya Rupanagunta, Alexander Testa, Dylan B. Jackson, Stuart B. Murray, Jason M. Nagata

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eating Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Mental HealthAmerican Heart AssociationNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteDoris Duke Charitable Foundation
KeywordsDemographyOdds ratioMedicineBinge-eating disorderLogistic regressionConfidence intervalBinge drinkingPsychiatryCohortEthnic groupProspective cohort studyPoison controlPsychologyEating disordersInjury preventionBulimia nervosaEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are common and linked to negative health outcomes. Previous studies have found associations between ACEs and binge-eating disorder (BED), though they have mainly focused on adults and use cross-sectional data. The objective of this study was to examine the associations between ACEs and BED in a large, national cohort of 9-14-year-old early adolescents in the US. METHODS: We analyzed prospective cohort data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (N = 10,145, 2016-2020). Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the associations between self-reported ACEs and BED based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia at two-year follow-up, adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, baseline household income, parental education, site, and baseline binge-eating disorder. RESULTS: In the sample, (49% female, 46% racial/ethnic minority), 82.8% of adolescents reported at least one ACE and 1.2% had a diagnosis of BED at two-year follow-up. The mean number of ACEs was higher in those with a diagnosis of BED compared to those without (2.6 ± 0.14 vs 1.7 ± 0.02). The association between number of ACEs and BED in general had a dose-response relationship. One ACE (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-10.89), two ACEs (aOR 3.88, 95% CI 1.28-11.74), and three or more ACEs (aOR 8.94, 95% CI 3.01-26.54) were all associated with higher odds of BED at two-year follow-up. When stratified by types of ACEs, history of household mental illness (aOR 2.18, 95% 1.31-3.63), household violence (aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.42-4.15), and criminal household member (aOR 2.14, 95% CI 1.23-3.73) were most associated with BED at two-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents who have experienced ACEs, particularly household challenges, have higher odds of developing BED. Clinicians may consider screening for ACEs and providing trauma-focused care when evaluating patients for BED.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations37
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207