Trajectories of perinatal depression, anxiety, perceived stress, sleep quality, and psychological flexibility from pregnancy to six months postpartum and their relationship with the number of abortions and deliveries

BackgroundPerinatal psychological distress is common and longitudinally heterogeneous, yet little is known about how obstetric history shapes symptom trajectories. We identified trajectories of depressive symptoms, perceived stress, sleep quality, psychological flexibility, and anxiety from early pregnancy to 24 weeks postpartum and examined their associations with the number of previous abortions and deliveries.MethodsIn this prospective longitudinal cohort study, 254 pregnant women were recruited at 13 weeks of gestation from a tertiary hospital in China and assessed eight times through 24 weeks postpartum using the EPDS, CPSS, PSQI, CompACT, and GAD-7. Group-based trajectory modeling identified latent trajectory classes. Logistic regression examined associations with obstetric history, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates.ResultsThree trajectories emerged for depressive symptoms (low-stable, 38.98%; mild-stable, 47.24%; moderate-increasing, 13.78%), perceived stress (low-stable, 31.89%; moderate-increasing, 16.54%; high-stable, 51.57%), and sleep quality (good-stable, 50.00%; mild-worsening, 38.58%; persistent poor, 11.42%); two emerged for psychological flexibility (continuously declining vs high-stable) and anxiety (low-stable, 93.70%; moderate, 6.30%). Compared with women without abortion history, those with two or more abortions had higher odds of mild-stable (OR = 5.14) and moderate-increasing depression (OR = 19.12), mild-worsening (OR = 3.06) and persistent poor sleep (OR = 5.51), and declining psychological flexibility (OR = 2.61); one abortion was associated with increased stress (OR = 2.54 and 2.16) and moderate anxiety (OR = 4.18). Number of deliveries was not associated with any trajectory.ConclusionsPrevious abortions predict adverse perinatal psychological trajectories in a dose-dependent manner. Routine assessment of abortion history at the first prenatal visit could help target early screening and tailored interventions.

Understanding the Different Types of Psychological Evaluations

If your child is struggling with mental health, behavior, or learning challenges, the first step to getting them the support they need is to seek a professional assessment. Whether you’ve been motivated to do so by the child’s teacher, the school, or your own concerns, there are several types of evalutations to choose from. And it can be hard to tell which one would be the best choice for your child.

There are three main types of evaluations: diagnostic, psychoeducational, and neurospychological.

A diagnostic evaluation is typically all you need for your child to receive a diagnosis of a mental health disorder and start a treatment plan.

A psychoeducational assessment is an evalution typically performed through a school’s Committee on Special Education (CSE) to see if a child qualifies for accommodations. This usually includes cognitive and academic testing, as well as social-emotional rating scales.

A neuropsychological evaluation is the most complete assessment of a child’s overall social-emotional, cognitive, academic, and neuropsychological functioning (including language, visual-motor, attention, executive functioning, and learning and memory skills). It’s especially useful for children with complex symptoms or learning challenges.

If you are looking to determine whether your child has a learning disorder, they’ll typically need either a full neuropsychological evaluation or one targeted for a specific learning disorder.

Preparation

For any of the three types of evaluations, it’s suggested that you do the following in advance:

  • Gather documents: Before the first visit, you will need to collect any relevant health and behavior records for your child, which could include medical records, past evaluations, school reports, and developmental screenings conducted by the child’s pediatrician.
  • Record observations: Take note of your child’s behaviors, especially when they seem atypical or out of character. Keep track of when they occur, as well as how frequently. This will be helpful for the evaluator to know.
  • Bring snacks and water: Since these examinations take several hours, you and your child will most likely need to take breaks.

Diagnostic evaluation

What it is: A diagnostic evaluation is a focused assessment to determine whether your child meets the criteria for a specific mental health or neurodevelopmental disorder — including depression, anxiety, ADHD, or autism. For example, if your child struggles with intrusive thoughts that make them anxious and they develop rituals to keep their anxiety at bay, a mental health professional will most likely add specific testing for OCD to their evaluation.

Purpose: “Diagnostic evaluations are primarily the gateway for receiving treatment,” explains Adam Zamora, PhD, a senior neuropsychologist and director of the Gund Learning and Diagnostic Center at the Child Mind Institute. “We want to know what diagnostic criteria they meet to figure out which treatment would be best for that diagnosis.”

Qualified provider: Typically, the evaluation is conducted by a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or another qualified mental health professional.

Time commitment: The evaluation process is about 4 hours total. This includes an interview with parents that will take 1–2 hours, a one-hour session with the child, and a one-hour feedback session with the family.

Evaluation process:

  • The clinician will collect information about your child’s developmental history as well as your family history. So they’ll usually speak to any previous treatment provider your child has had as well as their teacher, says Dr. Zamora. Then you’ll be interviewed, which can be done virtually.
  • You will fill out questionnaires about your child’s daily habits and behaviors. And you’ll fill out a rating scale that will help to quantify your child’s symptoms and compare them to the norm. This can be helpful for balancing out the information received during the interview, says Dr. Zamora. “I’ve had some parents tell me that their kid has all these significant challenges. And then they fill out the rating scales and everything is within age expectation. Or it can be the other way around.”
  • Then the child comes in for observation and evaluation. A parent could be present, depending on the situation, notes Lara Litvinov, PhD, a senior psychologist and director of the ADHD and Behavior Disorders Center at the Child Mind Institute. During this observation, the clinician will administer standardized assessments, which typically are tailored to their symptoms. For instance, if it’s thought that a child may have autism, they will be tested on their social communication skills and whether they show repetitive behaviors. The evaluator might observe if the child has difficulty maintaining eye contact as they talk, or see if they play with toys in the exact same way over and over again. If it’s thought that a child may have ADHD, the clinician will test their cognitive and executive functioning abilities. They might have the child solve puzzles or play memory games.
  • Once the clinician has been able to review the information collected from the evaluation, there will be a feedback interview. Along with a diagnosis, the clinician will provide their recommendations for treatment. They will also suggest further testing if necessary.

Report: Shortly after the feedback interview, you will receive a formal written report of the evaluation results. This will consist of brief background information, a diagnosis, and recommendations.

Cost: Depending on the location, clinician experience, the specificity of testing, and insurance coverage, these evaluations can range from $300 to $4,000. Community health centers may offer lower rates, while a private practice with licensed psychologists or psychiatrists will charge more.

Drawbacks: While a diagnostic evaluation is good for starting treatment, it doesn’t provide an in-depth look at all aspects of your child’s brain functioning. If a child’s symptoms are complex, they’re thought to have a learning disorder, or they’re struggling with multiple mental health disorders, it may be more helpful to have a neuropsychological evaluation (see below). Typically, the evaluator will let you know if they think your child needs further assessment.

Psychoeducational evaluation

What it is: A psychoeducational evaluation determines if a student is eligible for special education or accomodations at school. It’s an assessment of their cognitive, academic, social, and emotional functioning compared to other children the same age. It also lets the school know the type of services the child will need.

Purpose: Children with mental health and learning disorders often need accommodations and services at school to have the same opportunities as children who don’t have these challenges. They could get this through an Individual Education Program (IEP) or a Section 504 plan. Since a school needs to determine that a student’s academic abilities are significantly impaired, an existing diagnosis may not be enough. Many schools require a psychoeducational assessment within a certain window of time after receiving a referral from a medical provider or a formal written request from you.

Qualified provider: This evaluation is conducted by a registered school psychologist.

Time commitment: The evaluation can take 4–6 hours in total. You and your child may be asked to come in for a whole school day or for separate sessions over the span of a few weeks. The testing can be stressful for the child, Dr. Litvinov explains, so it can be helpful to break it up into several sessions.

Evaluation process:

  • In addition to the health records you provide, the psychologist will have asked your child’s teachers to complete a questionnaire about their learning and behavior.
  • The psychologist will interview you about your child’s academic and developmental background, family history, and any concerns you have. You will likely be asked questions about how your child handles school assignments, what their academic strengths and weaknesses are, as well as notes you’ve received from their teachers. If your child is under 10, the examiner likely will ask you to fill out questionnaires about your child’s social-emotional and behavioral functioning.
  • The psychologist will then evaluate your child for several hours. You won’t be permitted in the room with them, but you can wait outside.

What’s tested:

Cognitive functioning: These assessments often include verbal or visual tests to examine verbal and nonverbal reasoning, certain types of memory, and the speed at which your child processes and responds to information. They will also be asked to engage in problem-solving tasks.

Social and emotional functioning: The child’s parents and teachers will complete questionnaires to gauge their social and emotional functioning. Depending upon the child’s age, they may fill out their own questionnaires as well.

You will then have a feedback session with the psychologist. Depending on their age, your child can be included in this session. During this time, you will go over the results, which can identify your child’s learning strengths and challenges and recommended supports.

In some cases, the evaluation may also result in a formal diagnosis of a specific learning or language disorder, depending on the professional conducting the evaluation and state licensing requirements.

Report: Both you and the school will receive a written report that includes detailed results, and provide suggestions for accommodations and interventions needed. It will also say if your child is eligible for separate special education classes.

Cost: The evaluation is free if it is conducted by the school. You will only need to pay out of pocket if you seek a private assessment. This can cost between $1,000 and $6,000. Your insurance may cover some of it, depending on your provider.

Drawbacks:

Given its purpose, this evaluation focuses only on academic skills, learning, and how your child performs in school. In many states, including New York, a school psychologist can’t give a formal diagnosis, Dr. Zamora adds. A psychoed assessment may not be comprehensive enough to highlight all key challenges your child may be experiencing.

Additionally, there could be delays in getting an assessment due to a backlog in requests or a shortage in school psychologists. School officials could also refuse to provide one altogether if they determine your child is not qualified based on specified criteria.

Neuropsychological evaluation

What it is: A neuropsychological evaluation is the examination of a child’s overall social-emotional, cognitive, academic, and neuropsychological functioning — and how they affect each other. This is often recommended for children who have complex issues, where a diagnostic evaluation might be too narrow. It can be helpful for those with multiple mental health disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and ADHD, learning disorders, or traumatic brain injury.

A neuropsychological exam takes several sessions, so it can provide a more complete, comprehensive picture of what might be going on. “We’re not just seeing one snapshot of a kid, but multiple snapshots,” Dr. Zamora explains. “And we’re sometimes looking to see if there is a very significant difference in how they’re performing on a Wednesday morning versus a Thursday afternoon, for example. So if you have a kid with ADHD or executive functioning challenges, they may seem okay one day. Then you test them on another day and they’re more inattentive or dysregulated, so you’re going to get a different presentation.”

Purpose: There can be several reasons for seeking this type of testing:

  • Learning disability or school accomodations: Both neuropsychological and psychoeducational assessments can be used to get a child accomodations at school, Dr. Litvinov says. But a neuropsychological evaluation can reveal underlying or more nuanced weaknesses that a psychoed evaluation missed, determining the child’s need for accomodations. So if you are unsatisfied with the assessment your child received or if you are unable to get one from the school, a neuropsych evaluation can be useful.
  • Complex symptoms: Sometimes a child displays challenges and behaviors that can relate to more than one mental health disorder. For instance, ADHD and anxiety can look similar in some children, so testing that covers a wider range of functioning may be needed to get to the bottom of the issues your child is dealing with — and identify the type of support they need. Trauma-related symptoms can also be difficult to pinpoint. “A lot of kids that I see have trauma. And there’s a lot of overlap of trauma symptoms and anxiety symptoms,” Dr. Litvinov explains. “You don’t want to be quick to judgment.”
  • Ineffective treatment: In some cases, a child may have received a diagnosis and has been getting treatment for a while, but it isn’t working. “We want to see if there’s something that we’re missing,” Dr. Litvinov explains. “And with older kids, they might be reporting less, so parents might know less.”
  • Flexibility: Sometimes, given cost and scheduling contraints, a family can request a more focused neuropsychological evaluation. “This looks like what I would call a beefier psychoed evaluation,” Dr. Zamora explains. “So if somebody came to us and was considering just testing for a learning disorder, I’d take a deeper dive into those academic areas to get a sense of which disorder it is. Is this actually dyslexia? Is it dysgraphia?” This evaluation usually takes 3–4 hours.

Qualified provider: This evaluation is typically conducted by a team of clinical psychologists, including a trained neuropsychologist.

Time commitment: The evaluation takes about 6–9 hours of testing in total, with 2–3 additional hours dedicated to interviews and a feedback session between you and the neuropsychologist. You and your child could be asked to come in for the whole day or separate sessions over the course of several days a week.

Evaluation process:

  • The clinican will look at medical records, school reports, and any previous evaluations. They may also speak directly to your child’s teacher and ask them to fill out questionnaires regarding your child’s learning abilities and behavior.
  • You will be interviewed about your child’s background, your family history, and concerns you have.
  • Your child will then spend one-on-one time with the neuropsychologist, in which they will be interviewed and given a series of assessments that examine the following:  
    • Cognitive and intellectual abilities
    • Short- and long-term memory and learning skills
    • Executive functioning
    • Speed and efficiency of processing
    • Concentration and attention
    • Language functioning 
    • Gross and fine motor skills
    • Visual-spatial skills
    • Emotional functioning
    • Social skills and social language
    • Academic functioning, including reading, writing, and math skills

Report: Afterward, you will receive a detailed written report that includes test results, interpretations, diagnoses, and recommendations. It can be used to support a request for a 504 plan or an IEP from your child’s school — and provide guidance to school staff on determining the right type of services for your child. The clinician may want to have a follow-up appointment to discuss the report and answer any questions you may have, but that is not always required.

Cost: Due to the time and depth of the evaluation, the cost of this testing can range from $1,500 to $10,000. While most evaluators may be out-of-network providers, there is a chance that a portion of this kind of evaluation may be covered by insurance.

Drawbacks: It can take a long time to schedule this test, as there is often a waiting list for child and adolescent neuropsychologists. This is also the most expensive examination out of the three.

Why knowing the difference is important

Dr. Litvinov emphasizes that it’s imperative that you’re aware of what each evaluation type entails. “I talk to parents whose child has received a diagnosic evaluation, and they’re frustrated or confused because they expected a detailed report that you typically get from a neuropsych evaluation,” she explains.

Some families wait months for a neuropsychological evaluation, not realizing that they can get treatment started for their child with a diagnostic evaluation or that a school can provide a free psychoeducational evaluation.

Understanding each type of evaluation will help you get your child the support they need.

The post Understanding the Different Types of Psychological Evaluations appeared first on Child Mind Institute.

Purrble Use Among LGBTQ+ Young People With Self-Harm Experiences: Findings From a Qualitative Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Difficulties with emotion regulation (ER) have widely been associated with the development and persistence of poor mental health, such as depression, anxiety, self-harmful thoughts, behaviors, and suicide attempts. Despite the importance of ER as a transdiagnostic risk factor, few interventions directly target ER. The impact of one such intervention, Purrble (a socially assistive robot; developed by Sproutel and Committee for Children), was recently evaluated when compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) within a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with sexual orientation and gender identity minorities, that is, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning (LGBTQ+) youth, who had self-harm experiences. However, while RCTs are well suited to evaluating effectiveness, they offer limited insight into how participants engage with, integrate, and perceive the value of interventions, like Purrble, in their everyday lives. Consequently, complementary qualitative process evaluation is needed to fully understand participants’ experiences and contextualize trial outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to explore and understand the engagement with and integration of the Purrble intervention using process evaluation interviews, considering its perceived influence on ER, mental health, and self-harm experiences. Methods: Following their participation in the Purrble RCT, 40 LGBTQ+ young people (16‐25 years) with current self-harm ideation took part in this qualitative process evaluation using semistructured online interviews. Interviews explored participant expectations of the RCT and Purrble; engagement and appropriation of Purrble; and perceived impact on mental health and self-harm. Thematic analysis was used to develop a thematic framework. Results: Four overarching themes were developed from the data. The first theme describes how participants used Purrble to ground themselves and manage distress, with participants suggesting de-escalation of their self-harm thoughts or behaviors. The second theme captures how Purrble was perceived as a companion or source of comfort, supporting self-soothing and self-care. The third theme highlights the role of accessibility and proximity, how the availability and location of Purrble during moments of distress influenced its perceived usefulness. The final theme examines circumstances in which participants chose not to engage with Purrble, offering insights into barriers to use and individual differences in engagement. Conclusions: This process evaluation helps to contextualize how Purrble could be a helpful intervention for those LGBTQ+ young people with experience of self-harm thoughts and behaviors. This evaluation also clarifies when Purrble may not be helpful. These qualitative findings offer important contextual insights alongside the quantitative results of the related RCT.
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/89e60d149e6765a35dd97d6fa10d8371" />

Effects of Telerehabilitation on Quality of Life, Physical Capacity, and Symptom Burden Within the Post–COVID-19 Condition: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Post–COVID-19 condition (PCC) is characterized by persistent symptoms and functional limitations that impair quality of life, and rehabilitation is an important component of its management. Because access to conventional face-to-face rehabilitation may be limited, telerehabilitation has emerged as an accessible alternative. However, the effectiveness of telerehabilitation across clinical outcomes remains uncertain, and the influence of different delivery modes is not well understood. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of telerehabilitation on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), physical capacity, and symptom burden in adults with PCC, and to determine whether delivery mode (synchronous, asynchronous, or hybrid) modified these effects. Methods: Seven databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, EBSCO, and PEDro) were searched for randomized controlled trials published from January 2020 through December 2025. Eligible trials enrolled adults with PCC and compared telerehabilitation with usual care or another control condition. The primary outcome was HRQoL; secondary outcomes included functional capacity assessed by the 6-minute walk test and sit-to-stand test, dyspnea, fatigue, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Mean differences or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were pooled using random-effects models with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment. Heterogeneity was quantified using I² and τ², with 95% prediction intervals reported where estimable. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Results: A total of 22 randomized controlled trials involving 2294 participants were included. Telerehabilitation was associated with significant improvements in HRQoL (SMD 1.26, 95% CI 0.07-2.45; <i>P</i>=.04), dyspnea (SMD 1.95, 95% CI 0.60-3.31; <i>P</i>=.005), and functional aerobic capacity (6-minute walk test : mean difference 77.79 meters, 95% CI 30.44-125.14; <i>P</i>=.001). Fatigue was also significantly reduced (SMD 0.89, 95% CI 0.16-1.62; <i>P</i>=.02), but no significant effects were observed for lower-limb strength (sit-to-stand test: SMD 0.55, 95% CI –0.15 to 1.25; <i>P</i>=.12) or symptoms of anxiety and depression (SMD 0.12, 95% CI –0.13 to 0.38; <i>P</i>=.36). No significant differences between delivery modes were observed for HRQoL (<i>P</i>=.93), functional aerobic capacity (<i>P</i>=.29), or dyspnea (<i>P</i>=.16). A significant subgroup difference was observed for lower-limb strength (<i>P</i>=.02). Conclusions: Telerehabilitation may improve quality of life, aerobic capacity, and symptom burden in PCC and offer an accessible option for post-COVID rehabilitation, although the certainty of evidence was generally limited. Asynchronous delivery appears feasible for general reconditioning, whereas its benefit for lower-limb strength and the value of synchronous supervision remain uncertain. Clinical Trial: PROSPERO CRD42023490863; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023490863

Correlation between hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function and clinical characteristics in the acute phase of first-episode drug-naive major depressive disorder

BackgroundFirst-episode drug-naïve depressive disorders have high heterogeneity in clinical features, and there is still room for in-depth exploration of the correlation with serum cortisol levels. This study aimed to explore the correlation between hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) function in the acute phase of first-episode drug-naïve major depressive disorder (MDD) and clinical features evaluated by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-24) and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS).MethodsPatients with first-episode drug-naïve MDD in the acute phase meeting the DSM-V diagnostic criteria were selected as the study group, and healthy individuals matched for gender and age were recruited as the control group. Serum cortisol levels were measured in both groups, and patients in the MDD group were evaluated using HAMD-24 and SDS.ResultsThe serum cortisol level in the MDD group(307.03 ± 77.80 nmol/L) was significantly higher than that in the healthy control group(261.13 ± 58.15 nmol/L) (Z-Value = -3.539, P < 0.05). The serum cortisol level showed a positive correlation trend (ρ > 0) with the anxiety factor, cognitive impairment factor, retardation factor, despair factor, total HAMD score, and SDS score, with statistical significance (p < 0.05). It showed a negative correlation trend (ρ < 0) with the sleep factor, without statistical significance (p > 0.05). It also showed a positive correlation trend (ρ > 0) with the weight factor and diurnal variation factor, without statistical significance (p > 0.05).ConclusionA significant increase in serum cortisol level can serve as one of the biological indicators for predicting the core symptom clusters and disease severity of MDD. Regulation of The HPA axis cortisol pathway may have potential value in alleviating MDD symptoms.

Comparison of short-term peripheral nerve stimulation, single-target supraorbital nerve pulsed radiofrequency, and dual-target supraorbital nerve–stellate ganglion pulsed radiofrequency for herpes zoster ophthalmicus–associated pain: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of short-term peripheral nerve stimulation (st-PNS), supraorbital nerve pulsed radiofrequency (SON-PRF), and combined supraorbital nerve and stellate ganglion pulsed radiofrequency (SON + SG-PRF) for herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO)-associated pain.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients with HZO-associated pain who underwent st-PNS, SON-PRF, or SON + SG-PRF between January 2023 and January 2026. The primary outcome was the longitudinal change in Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores over 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the clinical response rate, anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), sleep quality (PSQI), and treatment-related adverse events. The incidence of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) was assessed as an exploratory outcome only in patients with a disease duration of ≤90 days at treatment. Longitudinal outcomes were analyzed using baseline-adjusted linear mixed-effects models, with propensity score weighting used for sensitivity analyses.ResultsA total of 269 patients were included: 84 in the st-PNS group, 96 in the SON-PRF group, and 89 in the SON + SG-PRF group. NRS scores decreased over follow-up in all three groups. In the primary and both propensity score-weighted analyses, the overall NRS trajectory was lower with st-PNS than with SON-PRF, whereas no significant difference was observed between st-PNS and SON + SG-PRF. The overall GAD-7 trajectory was lower with SON + SG-PRF than with SON-PRF, and the overall PSQI trajectory was lower with SON + SG-PRF than with either st-PNS or SON-PRF; these differences remained statistically significant in both weighted analyses. The overall trajectories of depressive symptoms did not differ significantly among the groups. Exploratory analysis did not establish a difference in PHN risk among the three groups. No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred during follow-up.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this study is the first to compare multidimensional clinical outcomes of st-PNS, SON-PRF, and SON + SG-PRF for HZO-associated pain within the same cohort. st-PNS showed a relatively consistent analgesic benefit over SON-PRF, whereas SON + SG-PRF also provided analgesia and showed potential benefits for anxiety and sleep outcomes. These findings require confirmation in prospective studies.

A stacking machine learning model for identifying comorbid anxiety disorder in children and adolescents with functional abdominal pain disorders

ObjectiveComorbid anxiety disorder is common in children and adolescents with functional abdominal pain disorders, but clinically usable risk-stratification tools integrating abdominal pain, psychosocial, school-related, and family-level information remain limited.MethodsIn this observational predictive modeling study, children and adolescents aged 7–18 years with Rome IV-defined functional abdominal pain disorders were evaluated between December 2021 and December 2025. Participants were randomly allocated at a 7:3 ratio into training and internal validation cohorts using stratified sampling by anxiety status. Candidate predictors included demographic, abdominal pain-related, somatic, psychosocial, school-related, and family-level variables. After LASSO-based feature selection, four prespecified base learners—explainable boosting machine, calibrated support vector machine, random forest, and CatBoost—were combined using an L2-penalized logistic regression stacking meta-learner. Performance was assessed using discrimination, threshold-dependent metrics, calibration, decision curve analysis, learner diversity, and SHAP-based interpretability.ResultsAmong 629 eligible patients, 210 (33.4%) had comorbid anxiety disorder. The training cohort included 440 patients, and the validation cohort included 189 patients, with similar anxiety prevalence in both cohorts. Clinically relevant correlates of anxiety included older age, longer symptom duration, higher pain frequency, night-time awakening, pain temporally associated with stressful events, higher SDSC and CSI-24 scores, higher parental GAD-7 score, and greater school absence. In out-of-fold training estimates, the stacking model achieved an AUC of 0.831 and a Brier score of 0.151. In the validation cohort, it showed the highest numerical performance among candidate models, with an AUC of 0.846 (95% CI, 0.789–0.894), accuracy of 0.788, sensitivity of 0.762, specificity of 0.802, F1 score of 0.706, and Brier score of 0.146. Decision curve analysis suggested potential clinical utility across selected threshold ranges. SHAP analysis identified school absence, parental GAD-7 score, CSI-24 score, pain-stress association, symptom duration, pain frequency, SDSC score, age, and night-time awakening as leading contributors to the final model output.ConclusionA stacking machine learning model integrating clinical, psychosocial, school-related, and family-level variables showed acceptable internal-validation performance for identifying comorbid anxiety disorder in children and adolescents with functional abdominal pain disorders. External validation is needed before clinical implementation.