Using Wearable Passive Sensing to Predict Binge Eating in Response to Negative Affect Among Individuals With Transdiagnostic Binge Eating: Protocol for an Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Binge eating (BE), characterized by eating a large amount of food accompanied by a sense of loss of control over eating, is a public health crisis. Negative affect is a well-established antecedent for BE. The affect regulation model of BE posits that elevated negative affect increases momentary risk for BE, as engaging in BE alleviates negative affect and reinforces the behavior. The eating disorder field's capacity to identify moments of elevated negative affect, and thus BE risk, has exclusively relied on ecological momentary assessment (EMA). EMA involves the completion of surveys in real time on one's smartphone to report behavioral, cognitive, and emotional symptoms throughout the day. Although EMA provides ecologically valid information, EMA surveys are often delivered only 5-6 times per day, involve self-report of affect intensity only, and are unable to assess affect-related physiological arousal. Wearable, psychophysiological sensors that measure markers of affect arousal including heart rate, heart rate variability, and electrodermal activity may augment EMA surveys to improve accurate real-time prediction of BE. These sensors can objectively and continuously measure biomarkers of nervous system arousal that coincide with affect, thus allowing them to measure affective trajectories on a continuous timescale, detect changes in negative affect before the individual is consciously aware of them, and reduce user burden to improve data completeness. However, it is unknown whether sensor features can distinguish between positive and negative affect states, given that physiological arousal may occur during both negative and positive affect states. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are (1) to test the hypothesis that sensor features will distinguish positive and negative affect states in individuals with BE with >60% accuracy and (2) test the hypothesis that a machine learning algorithm using sensor data and EMA-reported negative affect to predict the occurrence of BE will predict BE with greater accuracy than an algorithm using EMA-reported negative affect alone. METHODS: This study will recruit 30 individuals with BE who will wear Fitbit Sense 2 wristbands to passively measure heart rate and electrodermal activity and report affect and BE on EMA surveys for 4 weeks. Machine learning algorithms will be developed using sensor data to distinguish instances of high positive and high negative affect (aim 1) and to predict engagement in BE (aim 2). RESULTS: This project will be funded from November 2022 to October 2024. Recruitment efforts will be conducted from January 2023 through March 2024. Data collection is anticipated to be completed in May 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This study is anticipated to provide new insight into the relationship between negative affect and BE by integrating wearable sensor data to measure affective arousal. The findings from this study may set the stage for future development of more effective digital ecological momentary interventions for BE. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47098.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".