MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415131507 · doi:10.1002/eat.24570

Applying Machine Learning to Predict Complex Clinical Course in Youth With Eating Disorders

2025· article· en· W4415131507 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Ryall, Abigail H. M. Bradley, Khaled El Emam, Nicole Obeid

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelEating disordersDiseaseBinge-eating disorderDisordered eating

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive performance of supervised machine learning models to logistic regression in identifying youth with eating disorders at risk of a complex clinical course based on clinical characteristics from the first treatment episode. METHODS: Clinical data from 327 youth treated at any level of care at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Eating Disorders Program (2018-2024) were extracted. Complex clinical course outcome was defined as either readmission after discharge or a treatment trajectory deviating from the expected step-down in intensity, including return to the same or escalation to a higher level of care. Thirty-four intake and discharge variables from the first treatment episode were used to train seven machine learning models and logistic regression using repeated nested cross-validation. Performance was assessed by AUC and brier scores. Models using intake-only versus intake plus discharge data were compared. A parsimonious model using the top 10 predictors was also evaluated. RESULTS: Random forest model with intake and discharge data achieved the best performance (AUC = 0.723; Brier = 0.176) that was significantly superior to logistic regression. Models trained on intake-only data showed poor discrimination (AUCs < 0.6). Including discharge data improved model performance across all algorithms. The most important predictor was weight change throughout treatment. Random forest performance declined when restricted to the top 10 predictors. DISCUSSION: Supervised machine learning demonstrates improved predictive performance for eating disorder disease course outcomes compared to traditional statistical methods, especially in higher-dimensionality settings. These findings support future application of machine learning to complex biopsychosocial datasets to advance precision medicine initiatives in the eating disorder field and better understand the etiology of disease trajectory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207