Food insecurity and binge‐eating disorder in early adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Food insecurity is defined as lack of consistent access to adequate food for healthy living. The objective of this study was to determine the associations between food insecurity and binge-eating disorder in a national cohort of 9- to 14-year-old children. METHOD: We analyzed prospective cohort data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (N = 10,035, 2016-2020). Logistic regression analyses estimated the associations between food insecurity at baseline, year 1, or year 2 (exposure) and binge eating, subclinical binge-eating disorder (Other Specified Feeding and Eating Disorder-Binge-Eating Disorder [OSFED-BED]), and binge-eating disorder (BED) (outcome) based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (KSADS-5) at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The prevalence of food insecurity in the study was 15.8%. At 2-year follow-up, 1.71% of the sample received a diagnosis of BED or OSFED-BED, while 6.62% reported binge eating. Food insecurity was associated with 1.67 higher odds of BED or OSFED-BED (95% CI 1.04-2.69) and 1.31 higher odds of binge-eating symptoms (95% CI 1.01-1.71). DISCUSSION: Food insecurity in early adolescence is associated with higher odds of developing future binge-eating and BED or OSFED-BED. Clinicians may consider assessing for binge eating in adolescents with food insecurity and provide support in accessing appropriate food resources. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Prior research has shown that food insecurity is associated with disordered eating behaviors, including binge eating in adulthood. This study explored whether food insecurity in early adolescence increases risk for developing binge-eating disorder (BED). Targeted screening for BED in adolescents experiencing FI, and vice versa, may be warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".