Assessing Fears of Negative Consequences in Children With Symptoms of Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fear of Aversive Consequences (FOAC), such as choking or vomiting, is an important associated feature of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID). However, the manifestation of FOAC in young children is poorly understood. This study aimed to describe the fears of children with ARFID symptoms and examine the concordance between parent and child ratings of fear. METHOD: Child-reported FOAC was assessed using an interview designed for children between 6 and 10 years old, the Gustatory Avoidance and Gastrointestinal Stress Symptoms (GAGSS). Parents were administered a semi-structured diagnostic interview regarding their child's symptoms, the Pica, ARFID, and Rumination Interview. RESULTS: Among 68 children with ARFID diagnoses or symptoms (41.2% female, 85.3% White, mean age = 8.2 years, SD = 1.1 years; range 5.2-9.9 years), 91.2% of children endorsed at least one fear relative to 26.5% of parents. Among parent-child dyads, 36.8% disagreed about the child's fear of stomach pain (κ = 0.12) and 48.5% disagreed about the child's fear of vomiting, (κ = 0.08), both indicating low inter-rater reliability. On average, children endorsed 4.3 (SD = 2.3) fears out of 9 options. The most frequently endorsed fears were that food will "taste bad," (n = 43, 63.2%), "make you gag" (n = 37, 54.4%), and "look disgusting" (n = 36, 52.9%). DISCUSSION: Findings highlight ways in which fear may manifest in children with ARFID that are not easily discernable by adults. Greater precision in depicting childhood fears may facilitate the earlier detection of problematic eating behaviors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".