A diagnostic subgroup comparison of health care utilization patterns in individuals with eating disorders diagnosed in childhood and/or adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined a 2-year period after diagnosis of an eating disorder to compare health care utilization in diagnostic subgroups including: anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), binge-eating disorder (BED), avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), and other specified eating disorders (Other). METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study of children diagnosed with AN (n = 674), BN (n = 230), BED (n = 59), ARFID (n = 171), and Other (n = 315). We used a general population cohort for comparison, matched 5:1 to the diagnostic subgroups on sex and birth date. We then conducted a separate analysis using the ARFID subgroup as a reference group compared to the other subgroups. Outcomes were determined using data linkage with health administrative databases and included hospitalizations, emergency department, general practitioner, psychiatry, and pediatrician visits. Odds ratios (dichotomous outcomes) and rate ratios (continuous outcome) were calculated. RESULTS: Mental health care utilization was higher for all subgroups compared to the general population. When the subgroups were compared to the ARFID subgroup, those with ARFID appeared to have similar health care utilization to the other subgroups, except when compared to those with AN. The AN subgroup had higher odds of a mental health related hospitalization (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.5) higher rates of mental health related pediatrician visits (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.26-2.46) and psychiatry visits (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07-2.68). CONCLUSIONS: Those with ARFID have similar utilization as other subtypes of eating disorders, except when compared to those with AN who have higher health care utilization. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Our study found that the health service needs of young people with all types of eating disorders are substantially higher than the general population, and it appears that Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) has similar health care utilization to other eating disorders.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".