ArticleEating and weight disorders : EWD2026
Artificial intelligence in eating disorder research: a scoping review with bibliometric analysis of trends, methodologies, and translational readiness (2016-2025).
Article in Eating and weight disorders : EWD, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArtificial intelligence (AI) applications in eating disorder research have expanded rapidly, yet the structure, scope, and translational readiness of this literature have not been systematically mapped. This study aimed to characterise publication trends, AI methodologies, clinical application domains, data sources, and implementation readiness across the empirical literature on AI in eating disorders.
methodsA scoping review with bibliometric analysis was conducted across three databases (PubMed [MEDLINE], the Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus) on 20 November 2025. Studies were included if they reported original empirical research employing AI or machine learning as the primary analytical method in an eating disorder population. A total of 66 articles published between 2016 and 2025 were included. Each study was classified according to predefined taxonomies covering AI methodology, clinical application domain, data source type, implementation readiness, eating disorder type, and target population. Bibliometric indicators, including total citations, citations per year, and normalised citation counts, were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation networks were constructed using Python (version 3.11) with the NetworkX and matplotlib libraries, and reporting quality was appraised using the TRIPOD+AI and CONSORT-AI statements.
resultsPublication output grew from one article in 2016 to 16 in 2025. Machine learning was the dominant AI methodology (78.8%), followed by natural language processing (19.7%) and a single conversational AI application (1.5%). The most common clinical applications were risk prediction (33.3%), diagnosis (25.8%), and treatment outcome prediction (21.2%). Clinical data (42.4%) and neuroimaging (18.2%) were the most frequently used data sources. The majority of studies remained at the laboratory stage (77.3%), with only two describing clinically deployed systems. The United States contributed 33.3% of articles; no contributions were identified from Africa, South America, or Southeast Asia.
conclusionsAI research in eating disorders is growing rapidly but remains geographically concentrated, methodologically dominated by traditional machine learning, and largely confined to laboratory settings. Adolescent populations (despite representing the peak age of eating disorder onset), bulimia nervosa, and low- and middle-income country contexts are systematically underrepresented. Closing the gap between research output and clinical implementation will require independent model validation, prospective evaluation, and sustained multidisciplinary collaboration. Level of Evidence Not applicable. This is a scoping review with bibliometric analysis that maps the scope and structure of a research field rather than evaluating clinical effectiveness; it therefore does not correspond to a traditional level-of-evidence rating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911514What 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.