Trial reportThe International journal of eating disorders2026
Personalized Treatment Selection for Digital Eating Disorder Interventions: A Proof-of-Concept for the Personalized Advantage Index.
Trial report in The International journal of eating disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Personalized Treatment Selection for Digital Eating Disorder Interventions: A Proof-of-Concept for the Personalized Advantage Index.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough a range of evidence-based treatments for eating disorders exist, treatment response varies substantially. The ability to match individuals to a treatment which they are most likely to benefit from may help improve treatment efficiency and therapeutic outcomes. The present study applies a treatment selection approach called the personalized advantage index (PAI) and evaluates its utility for matching individuals to a broad versus focused digital program for eating disorder symptoms.
methodData were used from a randomized non-inferiority trial comparing the two interventions (n = 214). Machine learning models (elastic net and random forest) were trained to predict post-intervention symptom severity for a broad and focused digital intervention using 40 self-reported baseline predictors. The PAI was calculated to identify the predicted optimal treatment for each participant.
resultsElastic net performed marginally better than the random forest at predicting intervention outcomes (Elastic net R DISCUSSION: PAI-based treatment matching did not improve post-treatment outcomes in this context. Greater utility of the PAI approach may emerge when applied to different treatment orientations or delivery formats, enabling greater opportunity for differential effects to emerge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.