Observational studyThe International journal of eating disorders2026
Detecting Binge Eating Risk With Naturalistic Data and Machine Learning: A Comparative Observational Study.
Observational study 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detecting Binge Eating Risk With Naturalistic Data and Machine Learning: A Comparative Observational Study.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNegative affect is a primary antecedent for binge eating (BE). Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) prompt the use of therapy skills when at risk for maladaptive behaviors. JITAIs show promise for improving emotion regulation skill use and decreasing BE. Identifying momentary negative affect has relied on ecological momentary assessment (EMA). EMA surveys are typically delivered 4-6 times/day via smartphone and are self-report; accordingly, EMA is limited by temporal granularity, participant insight, and adherence. Wearable sensors which continuously, passively measure physiological correlates of affect may be able to detect risk for negative affect-related BE while overcoming limitations of EMA. This study compared machine learning models using EMA- and sensor-measured negative affect to predict BE.
methodThirty adults with recurrent BE wore smartwatches to measure heart rate and electrodermal activity and reported affect and BE on EMA for 4 weeks (preregistration: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2023/1/e47098/). Support vector machines, random forest, and neural network models were trained using the first 3 weeks and evaluated using the last week of EMA data, sensor data, and combined EMA and sensor data.
resultsThe best-performing EMA-only model for predicting BE had macro-averaged accuracy of 0.64 (AUROC = 0.69, sensitivity = 0.47, specificity = 0.81), the sensor-only model had macro-averaged accuracy of 0.64 (AUROC = 0.78, sensitivity = 0.92, specificity = 0.35), and the combined model had macro-averaged accuracy of 0.61 (AUROC = 0.68, sensitivity = 0.90, specificity = 0.33); model macro-averaged accuracies did not significantly differ. DISCUSSION: Psychophysiological sensor data demonstrate comparable accuracy to EMA for predicting BE, setting the stage for low-burden JITAIs targeting negative affect-related BE.
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.