The Prevalence and Burden of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Symptoms in Adults With Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: 2026 Flack et al

Andy

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
Full title: The Prevalence and Burden of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Symptoms in Adults With Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: A Population-Based Study

Abstract​

Background & Aims​

Individuals with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) may experience avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) symptoms. However, extant findings have been limited to specialist neurogastroenterology clinics. We assessed the association between DGBI and ARFID within the adult general population.

Methods​

A population-based Internet survey with predefined demographic quotas was conducted across the United Kingdom and the United States in 2023. The survey included the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire for DGBI, the Nine-Item ARFID Screen, and questions regarding demographics, body mass index, nongastrointestinal somatic symptoms, anxiety and depression, quality of life, and healthcare use.

Results​

In this study, 4002 adults (median age, 46 [range, 18–91] years; 50% female) completed the survey, of whom 1704 (42.6%) had symptoms compatible with at least 1 DGBI. The prevalence of ARFID-positive screens was significantly higher among participants with DGBI compared with those without DGBI (34.6% vs 19.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.43–1.94), with similar findings noted in each country. Among participants with DGBI, positive ARFID screens using the Nine-Item ARFID Screen subscale were lack of interest in eating (21.5%), sensory-based avoidance (18.1%), and fear of aversive consequences (9.9%). The presence of ARFID increased with the number of DGBI anatomic regions, ranging from 19.4% in those with no DGBI, 27.7% with DGBI in 1 region, 39.5% for DGBI in 2 regions, 50.0% for DGBI in 3 regions, and 61.4% for DGBI in 4 regions (P < .001). Individuals with DGBI plus ARFID, compared with those with DGBI alone, were significantly more likely to be underweight (7.9% vs 1.5%), have greater nongastrointestinal somatic symptoms and psychological distress, reduced mental and physical quality of life, and increased healthcare use.

Conclusions​

Positive ARFID screens are common in DGBI and associated with increased general health burden. Routine screening for ARFID in DGBI will inform the multi-integrated care plan provided by clinicians, dietitians, and psychologists.

Open access
 
This is seriously some of the most bizarre stuff happening in the world right now, and I truly understand the full implications of what I'm saying. It really is that absurd. I don't see how things would be any worse if astrology ruled this instead.

I'm not sure which age group taken at random would manage to do worse either. Like, take a bunch of random 8 year-old, how would they do any worse than this? Maybe at around 5-6 you could manage it, but it would probably take all of 10 minutes explaining basic things and they'd still do better. So, probably around 4. And even then, by sheer luck most would do better.

"Why don't we just make the hungry people who don't eat eat?"
"If their tummy hurts and we make their tummy not hurt then they would eat"

Intelligence is entirely wasted without wisdom.
 
rvallee said:
Intelligence is entirely wasted without wisdom.
Click to expand...
It feels like LLMs trained on bad data. Just parroting the same thing again and again unable to think outside the box it was trained on. (Maybe this is unfair to LLMs, newer models can actually probably reason and reasses bias despite poisoned training better than how psychobehaviouralists respond to criticism).
 
Yann04 said:
It feels like LLMs trained on bad data. Just parroting the same thing again and again unable to think outside the box it was trained on. (Maybe this is unfair to LLMs, newer models can actually probably reason and reasses bias despite poisoned training vetter than how psychobehaviouralists respond to criticism).
Click to expand...
And it really is actually feeding itself with its own output and only getting worse as a result. It's just amazing how all the valid criticism about LLMs applies here 10x. Human slop is so much worse than AI slop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom