Eating disorders and disordered eating symptoms in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eating disorders (EDs) are among the least studied mental disorders in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). The primary aim (a) of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify factors predicting ED diagnoses in CHR-P individuals. The secondary aim (b) was providing a comprehensive clinical description of individuals with both CHR-P and EDs/ED-related symptoms. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis, searching PubMed/(EBSCO)PsycINFO/Web of Science for studies published between 01/01/2018 and 30/05/2023, including individuals with CHR-P and EDs/ED symptoms (PROSPERO CRD42023488792). Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We performed a meta-regression model on the proportion of EDs in CHR-P individuals (primary aim) and conducted a narrative synthesis (secondary aim). RESULTS: We included 26 articles, reporting on 2,060 and 589 subjects for study aim (a) and (b), respectively (mean NOS score = 6.38). The prevalence of EDs in CHR-P individuals was 0.05 (95% CI 0.3-0.8). No factor had a significant effect on the proportion of EDs in CHR-P individuals. This result is limited by the inability to include ED-related symptoms and antipsychotic prescriptions in the meta-regression model, due to an insufficient number of studies reporting on these variables. The narrative synthesis offers a characterization of individuals with both CHR-P and ED/ED-related symptoms; however, the limited number of included studies is insufficient to support definitive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: No significant predictor of EDs was found in CHR-P individuals. Transdiagnostic, prospective cohort studies are warranted to examine long-term outcomes in individuals with both CHR-P and EDs, beyond diagnostic silos. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I. Systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".