PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 20261 citations

Detecting Binge Eating Risk With Naturalistic Data and Machine Learning: A Comparative Observational Study.

View Full Paper
EPEmily K PressellerPGPhilip A. GableFZFengqing Zhang

Key Points

  • The study aims to compare the effectiveness of ecological momentary assessment and wearable sensors in predicting binge eating related to negative affect.
  • Thirty adults with recurrent binge eating wore smartwatches to measure heart rate and electrodermal activity over 4 weeks.
  • Participants reported their affect and binge eating using ecological momentary assessment (EMA).
  • Support vector machines, random forest, and neural network models were trained on three weeks of data and evaluated on the final week for prediction accuracy.
  • The EMA-only model achieved macro-averaged accuracy of 0.64 (AUROC = 0.69).
  • The sensor-only model achieved macro-averaged accuracy of 0.64 (AUROC = 0.78).
  • The combined model achieved macro-averaged accuracy of 0.61 (AUROC = 0.68), with no significant differences among the models.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Negative 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. METHOD: Thirty 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. RESULTS: The 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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Presseller et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f4427a967e944ac55660a0https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.70107
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper