Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

Smartphone ownership linked to higher risk of eating disorder symptoms among 12-year olds (opens in a new tab)

medicalxpress.com · 2026-10-01

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

One claim goes further than the study. 2 other points were not covered by the paper.

  • 3 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 2 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

One claim overstates the study. Three of six check out. Two claims the study doesn't address.

  • 3 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 2 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Source paper

Source layer

The 2 papers the story cites

Source study separated from background citations.

The research anchor for the report.

Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

6 claims in this story

Showing all 6 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 6OverstatedThe article says the findings support delaying first smartphone ownership and tailoring content access to an adolescent's maturity, and it mentions the AAP's Family Media Plan as a possible tool for families.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The paper profile supports an observational association between smartphone ownership at age 12 and later ED symptoms, and it notes the need for future research into mechanisms. It does not, at the abstract level, establish that delaying smartphone ownership will reduce ED symptoms or provide evidence for tailoring content access by maturity. The AAP Family Media Plan is not part of the supplied paper profile. Thus the story’s practical recommendation outruns the evidence, even if framed cautiously.

1

Study evidence

Owning a smartphone at 12 years was cross-sectionally associated with higher prevalence of binge-eating symptoms at age 12 in covariate-adjusted models.PR 1.61 (95% CI, 1.17–2.23); P = .003

“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link to ABCD Study data”
2

Study evidence

Owning a smartphone at age 12 was longitudinally associated with higher risk of binge-eating symptoms at age 14 in covariate-adjusted models.RR 1.67 (95% CI, 1.11–2.52); P = .01

“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link”
Claim 2 of 6Not coveredResearchers analyzed data from 8,957 adolescents across 21 centers in the U.S. who took part in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, and the children completed psychiatric interviews at age 12 and again at age 14.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The sample size, ABCD Study source, 21 U.S. sites, and assessment of ED outcomes at ages 12 and 14 are supported. However, the specific statement that children completed “psychiatric interviews” is not verifiable from the abstract-level profile, which says only that binary ED symptom measures were assessed and notes that measurement details/instruments/informants are not provided in the abstract.

1

Study evidence

Owning a smartphone at 12 years was cross-sectionally associated with higher prevalence of binge-eating symptoms at age 12 in covariate-adjusted models.PR 1.61 (95% CI, 1.17–2.23); P = .003

“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link to ABCD Study data”
2

Study evidence

Owning a smartphone at age 12 was longitudinally associated with higher risk of binge-eating symptoms at age 14 in covariate-adjusted models.RR 1.67 (95% CI, 1.11–2.52); P = .01

“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link”
Claim 3 of 6Not coveredBy age 14, nearly 1 in 4 teens who owned a smartphone reported at least one eating disorder symptom.View evidenceHide evidence

As statednearly 1 in 4

Why this verdict

The profile supports a longitudinal association with higher risk of any ED symptom at age 14, but it does not provide the absolute prevalence among smartphone owners at age 14. The “nearly 1 in 4” figure cannot be verified from the abstract-level evidence supplied.

1

Study evidence

Owning a smartphone at age 12 was longitudinally associated with higher risk of binge-eating symptoms at age 14 in covariate-adjusted models.RR 1.67 (95% CI, 1.11–2.52); P = .01

“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link”
Claim 4 of 6SupportedA recent study published in JAMA Network Open examined whether getting a smartphone at age 12 could be linked to the development of eating disorder symptoms later in adolescence among young people in the United States.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports that the JAMA Network Open study used ABCD Study data to test whether smartphone ownership at age 12 was longitudinally associated with ED symptoms at age 14. The story frames this as a hedged association rather than causation, which matches the paper profile.

1

Study evidence

Owning a smartphone at age 12 was longitudinally associated with higher risk of binge-eating symptoms at age 14 in covariate-adjusted models.RR 1.67 (95% CI, 1.11–2.52); P = .01

“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link”
Claim 5 of 6SupportedAt age 12, smartphone ownership was associated with a 61% higher likelihood of binge eating and more than twice the likelihood of tying self-worth to body weight.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated61% more likely; more than twice as likely

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile reports cross-sectional age-12 associations matching the stated magnitudes: binge-eating symptoms PR 1.61 and self-worth tied to weight PR 2.21. The story frames these as associations, which is appropriate for the cross-sectional analysis.

1

Study evidence

Owning a smartphone at 12 years was cross-sectionally associated with higher prevalence of binge-eating symptoms at age 12 in covariate-adjusted models.PR 1.61 (95% CI, 1.17–2.23); P = .003

“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link to ABCD Study data”
Claim 6 of 6SupportedThe two-year follow-up at age 14 found that owning a smartphone at age 12 predicted a 67% higher risk of binge-eating symptoms and a 50% higher risk of inappropriate compensatory behaviors such as extreme fasting or purging.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated67% higher risk; 50% higher risk

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile reports longitudinal age-14 risk ratios matching the stated magnitudes: binge-eating symptoms RR 1.67 and inappropriate compensatory behaviors RR 1.50. The wording “predicted” is acceptable here as a temporal observational association, provided it is not read as causal.

1

Study evidence

Owning a smartphone at age 12 was longitudinally associated with higher risk of binge-eating symptoms at age 14 in covariate-adjusted models.RR 1.67 (95% CI, 1.11–2.52); P = .01

“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • Residual confounding remains possible because the study is observational and the abstract does not enumerate the specific covariates used for adjustment.

    The presented caveats do not mention residual confounding or the limited detail on covariate adjustment, which is an important interpretation-changing limitation for observational associations.

    From observational cohort secondary analysis (cross-sectional at age 12); observational longitudinal secondary analysis

  • The paper profile calls for further research into mechanisms rather than establishing mechanism or intervention effects.

    The story turns the findings into advice about delaying smartphone ownership and tailoring content access. The supplied profile supports association and need for mechanism research, not demonstrated effects of delay or content restrictions.

    From observational longitudinal secondary analysis

5 things the story did carry across
  • The paper’s primary question was whether smartphone ownership at age 12 was associated with ED symptoms cross-sectionally at age 12 and longitudinally at age 14 in ABCD Study participants.
  • The study was observational and used weighted, covariate-adjusted Poisson generalized linear models to estimate prevalence ratios and risk ratios, not causal effects.
  • Cross-sectional age-12 findings included higher prevalence of binge-eating symptoms, self-worth tied to weight, and any ED symptom among smartphone owners.
  • Longitudinal age-14 findings included higher risk of binge-eating symptoms, inappropriate compensatory behaviors, self-worth tied to weight, and any ED symptom among those owning a smartphone at age 12.
  • Cross-sectional age-12 results cannot establish temporality or causation.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

2

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

secondary data

1Lead resultsecondary dataTest whether owning a smartphone by age 12 predicts incident/persistent ED symptoms by age 14 (2-year longitudinal association).observational longitudinal secondary analysisExpand

In plain English

Secondary analysis of the ABCD cohort tested whether owning a smartphone at age 12 predicted incident or persistent eating-disorder (ED) symptoms at age 14 over a 2-year follow-up. Using weighted, covariate-adjusted Poisson regression with a log link, smartphone ownership at 12 was associated with higher 2-year risk of several ED symptom outcomes (binge-eating, compensatory behaviors, self-worth tied to weight, and any ED symptom).

Key findings

  • Owning a smartphone at age 12 was longitudinally associated with higher risk of binge-eating symptoms at age 14 in covariate-adjusted models.RR 1.67 (95% CI, 1.11–2.52); P = .01
  • Owning a smartphone at age 12 was longitudinally associated with higher risk of using inappropriate compensatory behaviors to prevent weight gain at age 14.RR 1.50 (95% CI, 1.16–1.94); P = .002
“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link”
2secondary dataTest whether owning a smartphone by age 12 is associated with eating disorder (ED) symptoms at age 12 (cross-sectional association).observational cohort secondary analysis (cross-sectional at age 12)Expand

In plain English

Cross-sectional analysis of ABCD Study participants at age 12 found that owning a smartphone at 12 years was associated with higher prevalence of several eating-disorder (ED) symptom indicators (binge-eating symptoms, self-worth tied to weight, and any ED symptom) in covariate-adjusted Poisson regression models weighted to population estimates.

Key findings

  • Owning a smartphone at 12 years was cross-sectionally associated with higher prevalence of binge-eating symptoms at age 12 in covariate-adjusted models.PR 1.61 (95% CI, 1.17–2.23); P = .003
  • Owning a smartphone at 12 years was cross-sectionally associated with higher prevalence of tying self-worth to weight at age 12 in covariate-adjusted models.PR 2.21 (95% CI, 1.03–4.74); P = .04
“Cross-sectional and 2-year longitudinal analyses applied generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link to ABCD Study data”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Cross-sectional design at age 12 precludes inference about temporality or causation between smartphone ownership and ED symptoms.

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref · 26 candidate papers

And 20 more candidates considered.