Exploring validated strategies for screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults in primary health care: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study will be the first scoping review dedicated to investigating screening strategies for eating disorders specifically performed in the primary health care setting, as no comprehensive examination has been performed to date. Our primary aim is to explore the available literature and assess and identify validated screening strategies for eating disorders in adolescents and adults within the primary care context. METHODS: The study protocol was developed following the guidance outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. This study will adhere to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews to report review data. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework. The review will include studies that involve validated screening strategies for eating disorders in adolescents and adults utilising primary health care services. Experimental, quasiexperimental, observational, qualitative, and mixed-methods study designs and reviews will be eligible without language or publication year restrictions. Six databases (MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO) and grey literature will be searched. Studies will be selected and extracted by two independent reviewers via online Covidence. The results will be presented in narrative form and through tables and graphs. When possible, descriptive qualitative content analysis will be conducted. DISCUSSION: The expected results of this scoping review will shed light on validated strategies for screening for eating disorders in primary health care. This will equip health care professionals with well-substantiated empirical evidence. Moreover, it is anticipated to uncover research gaps, nurturing the ongoing development and refinement of screening strategies for eating disorders in primary health care. The results will be widely disseminated to the scientific community, policy-makers, service providers, and the general public. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/pybvf ).
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 | 0.155 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.022 |
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".