Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (<scp>ARFID</scp>) Symptoms in Adolescent Patients With Disorders of Gut–Brain Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) share clinical characteristics. However, research on the prevalence of ARFID symptoms in youth with DGBI and the clinical presentation of DGBI youth with varying levels of ARFID symptoms is limited. METHOD: In this cross-sectional observational study, 38 adolescents (range 12-17 years; 71% female) with a diagnosed DGBI receiving treatment at a pediatric gastroenterology clinic and a primary caregiver completed the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS). Gastrointestinal (GI), psychiatric, quality of life (QOL), and weight/growth outcomes were assessed via youth- and caregiver-reported questionnaires, anthropometrics, and a water load test. ARFID symptoms were characterized, and their associations with GI, psychiatric symptoms, QOL, and weight/growth outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Clinically significant ARFID symptoms were reported by 42% of youth and 55% of caregivers. ARFID symptoms were associated with more severe GI and psychiatric symptoms, lower QOL, and clinically significant weight loss or faltering growth. While associations became non-significant after false discovery rate correction, the effect sizes were medium to large, clearly demonstrating meaningful associations. Agreements between youth and caregiver NIAS reports were good to excellent. DISCUSSION: ARFID symptoms are common in adolescents with DGBI and associated with clinical severity. Further elucidating this common co-morbidity and developing guidelines for effective co-management are priorities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".