Cited by 100Eating Disorders and BehaviorsChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Radcliffe ARFID Workgroup: Toward operationalization of research diagnostic criteria and directions for the field

Open access
Eddy, Kamryn T., Harshman, Stephanie G., Becker, Kendra R., Bern, Elana, Bryant‐Waugh, Rachel, Hilbert, Anja, Katzman, Debra K., Lawson, Elizabeth A. +12 more·2019·International Journal of Eating Disorders

Abstract

Objective: Since its introduction to the psychiatric nomenclature in 2013, research on avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) has proliferated highlighting lack of clarity in how ARFID is defined. Method: In September 2018, a small multi‐disciplinary pool of international experts in feeding disorder and eating disorder clinical practice and research convened as the Radcliffe ARFID workgroup to consider operationalization of DSM‐5 ARFID diagnostic criteria to guide research in this disorder. Results: By consensus of the Radcliffe ARFID workgroup, ARFID eating is characterized by food avoidance and/or restriction, involving limited volume and/or variety associated with one or more of the following: weight loss or faltering growth (e.g., defined as in anorexia nervosa, or by crossing weight/growth percentiles); nutritional deficiencies (defined by laboratory assay or dietary recall); dependence on tube feeding or nutritional supplements (≥50% of daily caloric intake or any tube feeding not required by a concurrent medical condition); and/or psychosocial impairment. Conclusions: This article offers definitions on how best to operationalize ARFID criteria and assessment thereof to be tested in existing clinical populations and to guide future study to advance understanding and treatment of this heterogeneous disorder.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The Radcliffe ARFID Workgroup convened a 2-day international, multidisciplinary meeting in September 2018 to propose consensus operationalizations of DSM-5 avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) criterion A and recovery for research use. The paper offers definitions to be tested in existing clinical populations and outlines screening, assessment, pathophysiology, and treatment directions for this heterogeneous disorder.

Key findings

  • ARFID eating was characterized by food avoidance and/or restriction involving limited volume and/or variety associated with one or more of: weight loss or faltering growth; nutritional deficiencies; dependence on tube feeding or nutritional supplements; and/or psychosocial impairment.
  • For criterion A3, the majority agreed on a research threshold of ≥50% of daily caloric intake via oral supplementation or any tube feeding not required by a concurrent medical condition.
  • Proposed recovery criteria included eating from all major food groups regularly (e.g., several days, 2–3 per week), weight no longer in the underweight range, no nutritional deficiencies, no more than one nutritional supplement drink per day, and no longer avoiding or experiencing significant distress in social eating situations.
  • The group identified a need for a screening tool with established sensitivity and specificity for ARFID and noted that no well-established treatments exist, with limited randomized clinical trials among patients with pediatric feeding disorders.

Methods

  • In September 2018, a small international, multidisciplinary group of experts in feeding and eating disorders convened for a 2-day Radcliffe Institute Exploratory Seminar at Harvard University.
  • Attendees included clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, dietitians, a gastroenterologist, an endocrinologist, a speech and language pathologist, and an occupational therapist; 20% came from outside the United States.
  • The paper reports discussion-based consensus operationalizations (agreed upon by the majority of attendees) and suggested future directions, rather than presenting original empirical data.

Limitations

  • The paper states that due to budgetary constraints there was larger representation from the Boston area, though efforts were made to achieve geographical diversity and 20% of attendees came from outside the United States.
  • The paper states that the proposed operationalizations and thresholds all warrant testing and validation in existing clinical populations; future data collection is needed to adjudicate the consensus definition for criterion A3.
  • The text makes evident that the recommendations are consensus-based rather than empirically validated, and that no diagnostic or screening measure with established sensitivity and specificity for ARFID was available at the time.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eat.23042

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 11 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    Goday and colleagues (2019) proposed new diagnostic criteria for pediatric feeding disorder that overlap substantially with DSM-5 ARFID criteria.

    “In fact, Goday and colleagues (2019) recently proposed new diagnostic criteria for ‘pediatric feeding disorder,’ which overlap substantially with DSM-5 ARFID criteria.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goday et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The EDY-Q has a suggested cut-off score for possible ARFID.

    “The EDY-Q in particular has a suggested cut-off score for possible ARFID.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kurz et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The feeding disorders community has adopted ARFID less widely than the eating disorders community.

    “the feeding disorders community—those treating ‘pediatric feeding disorder’ and adults with developmental and physical disabilities—has adopted it less widely (Goday et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goday et al., 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Interpretationreasoning

    An individual need not have failure to meet nutritional/energy needs in order to have significant psychosocial interference.

    “Although the stem criterion A includes the clause, “as manifested by persistent failure to meet appropriate nutritional and/or energy needs,” an individual need not have failure to meet nutritional/energy needs in order to have significant psychosocial interference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 4
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Two new self-report screening tools include the Eating Disorders in Youth-Questionnaire (EDY-Q) for children and adolescents and the Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) for adults.

    “Two new self-report screening tools include Eating Disorders in Youth-Questionnaire (EDY-Q; Kurz, van Dyck, Dremmel, Munsch, & Hilbert, 2015) for children and adolescents and Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS; Zickgraf & Ellis, 2018) for adults.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kurz et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Zickgraf & Ellis, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The EDY-Q and NIAS both yield dimensional symptom ratings rather than diagnoses.

    “These both yield dimensional symptom ratings rather than diagnoses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kurz et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Zickgraf & Ellis, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    As of yet, there are no well-established treatments for ARFID, with a limited number of randomized clinical trials among patients with pediatric feeding disorders.

    “As of yet, there are no well-established treatments for ARFID, with a limited number of randomized clinical trials among patients with pediatric feeding disorders (Sharp et al. 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sharp et al. 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Diagnostic tools available for research include the Eating Disorder Assessment for DSM-5 (EDA-5), the ARFID module of the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE-ARFID), and the Pica, ARFID, Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI).

    “Diagnostic tools that are available for use in research include the Eating Disorder Assessment for DSM-5 (EDA-5; Sysko et al., 2015), the new ARFID module of the Eating Disorder Examination (Schmidt, Kirsten, Hiemisch, Kiess, & Hilbert, in press), and the Pica, ARFID, Rumination Disorder Interview (PARDI) (Bryant-Waugh et al, in press).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sysko et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Schmidt et al., in press

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bryant-Waugh et al, in press

      Not checked in the free run.

4 of 4
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Research on ARFID has proliferated and there is lack of clarity in how ARFID is defined.

    “Since its introduction to the psychiatric nomenclature in 2013, research on avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) has proliferated, highlighting lack of clarity in how ARFID is defined.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The boundaries of the ARFID diagnosis and operationalization of the criteria remain imprecise.

    “However, five years later, the boundaries of the diagnosis and operationalization of the criteria remain imprecise.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    ARFID is phenotypically heterogeneous.

    “Furthermore, experts noted that ARFID is phenotypically heterogeneous and these variable presentations may in turn call for variable interventions, only some of which would be multidisciplinary.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Individuals with ARFID often present to settings other than mental health clinics.

    “Individuals with ARFID often present to settings other than mental health clinics.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reliance on laboratory data is not feasible because laboratory data do not always correlate with clinical or dietary findings and assays are costly.

    “Reliance on laboratory data may not be feasible given that laboratory data do not necessarily always correlate with either clinical or dietary findings and the cost for many of these assays is high.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Community-based expertise in ARFID is limited.

    “Given that community-based expertise in ARFID is limited, it was considered a strength that these competencies can be scaffolded based on existing expertise (e.g., with other eating disorders, anxiety disorders, developmental disorders).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The need for multidisciplinary involvement increases at younger ages and with higher levels of severity and medical complexity.

    “The need for multidisciplinary involvement increases at younger ages and with higher levels of severity and medical complexity.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Two sets of criteria to classify the same population would further bifurcate the field.

    “Our group had concerns that two sets of criteria to classify the same population would further bifurcate the field.”
8 of 8

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bringing together feeding and eating disorders in a single grouping represents an expanded appreciation for the clinical significance of feeding problems during infancy and childhood.

    “Bringing together FEDs in a single grouping represents an expanded appreciation for the clinical significance of feeding problems during infancy and childhood [75, 76].”

    From Mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders in the ICD-11: an international perspective on key changes and controversies (2020) · cites this paper as [76]

    In “How do we define ARFID?” (page unavailable), the paper says the revised and expanded ARFID criteria provide a diagnostic home for some patients with childhood feeding disorders who would not have met the earlier DSM-IV diagnosis. It does not say that bringing feeding and eating disorders into a single grouping itself represents an expanded appreciation of the clinical significance of feeding problems in infancy and childhood. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Harvard University. (2018).Exploratory seminars. Retrieved fromhttps://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/academic-ventures/seminars-workshops/exploratory-seminars.
  2. Schmidt R., 2016, Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder module for the eating disorder examination
  3. Thomas J. J., 2019, Cognitive‐behavioral therapy for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Children, adolescents, and adults

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eddy, K. T., Harshman, S. G., Becker, K. R., Bern, E., Bryant‐Waugh, R., Hilbert, A., Katzman, D. K., Lawson, E. A., Manzo, L. D., Menzel, J., Micali, N., Ornstein, R., Sally, S., Serinsky, S. P., Sharp, W., Stubbs, K., Walsh, B. T., Zickgraf, H., Zucker, N., & Thomas, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Eddy, Kamryn T.
Venue
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-02-13
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
361-366
ISSN
  • 0276-3478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-108X
OpenAlex
W2913471539
Cited by
100
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6
FWCI
11.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Eating Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (1F32MH118824, 1R01MH108595)
  • Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, DSM-5, food avoidance, dietary restriction, weight loss, failure to thrive, nutritional deficiency, psychosocial impairment, eating disorders, feeding disorders
MeSH terms
Feeding and Eating Disorders, Humans, Research Design, Retrospective Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review