| Literature DB >> 35144682 |
Yaoxiang Ren1, Chaoyi Lu2,3, Han Yang2,3, Qianyue Ma3, Wesley R Barnhart4, Jianjun Zhou3, Jinbo He5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many previous studies have investigated the risk factors associated with eating disorders (EDs) from the perspective of emotion regulation (ER). However, limited research has investigated interactions between co-existing risk factors for EDs, especially in China where research in EDs is underrepresented.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese women; Decision tree; Eating disorders; Machine learning; Risk factors
Year: 2022 PMID: 35144682 PMCID: PMC8832719 DOI: 10.1186/s40337-022-00545-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Eat Disord ISSN: 2050-2974
Comparison of groups on study variables
| Eating disorder risk classification | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total sample ( | No ( | Yes ( | |||||
| Variable | |||||||
| BMI | 20.16 | 2.40 | 20.04 | 2.41 | 20.82 | 2.20 | 0.33 [0.14, 0.51] |
| Eating inflexibility | 30.70 | 7.11 | 29.91 | 6.87 | 34.88 | 6.91 | 0.72 [0.53, 0.91] |
| Psychological distress | 11.71 | 4.32 | 11.00 | 3.87 | 15.45 | 4.64 | 1.11 [0.92, 1.31] |
| Loss of control over eating | 13.34 | 5.51 | 12.34 | 4.88 | 18.59 | 5.68 | 1.25 [1.05, 1.45] |
| Body image inflexibility | 11.59 | 6.30 | 10.11 | 5.10 | 19.35 | 6.29 | 1.74 [1.53, 1.95] |
| Body dissatisfaction | 34.60 | 9.13 | 33.61 | 8.79 | 39.79 | 9.16 | 0.70 [0.51, 0.89] |
| Emotional over eating | 2.18 | 0.92 | 2.06 | 0.88 | 2.83 | 0.87 | 0.88 [0.69, 1.07] |
M = mean, SD = standard deviation, d = Cohen’s d, CI = confidence interval. The classification of “Yes” stands for groups classified with high risk of EDs, and “No” stands for groups classified with low risk of EDs
Fig. 1Decision tree for classifying at-risk of EDs. Note: Figure shows the classification tree for at-risk of EDs based on the training subsample of the overall dataset (n = 581 of 830). Total_BIAAQ = total score of Body Image Acceptance and Action Questionnaire. Total_K = total score of Kessler Scale to assess psychological distress. Total_EDI_BD = Body Dissatisfaction subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory. For each internal node, the first line refers to a decision rule with a selected attribute. For example, the root node indicates a decision rule that the attribute body image inflexibility is smaller than or equal to 15.01. For a node with branches, its left child node follows the decision rule in the parent node, whereas its right child follows the complement of the decision rule. The second line of each internal node indicates the percentage of samples involved in this node. The third line refers to the percentages of positive samples (i.e., samples at-risk of EDs) and that of negative samples (i.e., samples without at-risk of EDs) within each node. The shade of color refers to the purity of each node, implying the extent of a mixture of groups for a subset of samples. The dark color means most samples belong to one group. Lastly, class in each box indicates whether high risk of EDs is more prevalent in a node. Blue boxes with class = yes indicate at-risk of EDs is more prevalent, whereas orange boxes with class = no indicate the subgroups contain more people with low risk of EDs, based on EDE-QS scores
Fig. 2Sensitivity and specificity for different test set. Note: The random state determines the randomness in the split of training set and test set. Therefore, different random states correspond to different test sets. Our proposed model was evaluated by each test set and the test sensitivity and specificity were recorded for each test set. In the figure above, the blue curve represents the change of test sensitivity with different test sets and the red curve represents the change of test specificity with different test sets