GLP-1 adolescent prescribing requires eating disorder screening because subclinical restrictive behaviors are clinically invisible without structured assessment

## Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation **1. Schema:** All five modified claims contain valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, and title fields; the new claim `glp1-adolescent-prescribing-requires-eating-disorder-screening-because-subclinical-restriction-invisible-without-assessment.md` has complete schema with all required fields for a claim. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The PMC12835689 case evidence (18-month pre-prescription restrictive history, cardiac complications, rapid progression) is injected into five different claims, but each enrichment addresses a distinct aspect: developmental timing vulnerability, screening necessity, protocol recommendations, pre-existing substrate requirement, and starvation spiral mechanism—the evidence is appropriately reused to support different analytical angles rather than redundantly making the same point. **3. Confidence:** The new claim uses "experimental" confidence based on a single case report (PMC12835689), which is appropriately cautious; the existing claims retain their original confidence levels (experimental for developmental timing, experimental for screening protocol, low for GI side effects, speculative for starvation spiral), and the case evidence supports but does not strengthen these levels since it remains n=1 observational data. **4. Wiki links:** The new claim references `[[glp1-atypical-anorexia-screening-gap-creates-invisible-high-risk-population]]` and `[[glp1-eating-disorder-screening-gap-structural-capacity-not-clinical-knowledge]]` which may not exist in the current branch, and one existing claim adds a self-referential link in its related field, but these are expected cross-PR references that should not block approval. **5. Source quality:** PMC12835689 is a peer-reviewed case report published in January 2026 in a PubMed Central indexed journal, providing credible clinical documentation appropriate for case-level evidence, though limited by n=1 generalizability. **6. Specificity:** The new claim makes a falsifiable assertion that subclinical restrictive behaviors are "clinically invisible without structured assessment" and that screening is "required" for adolescent GLP-1 prescribing—someone could disagree by arguing clinical judgment alone is sufficient or that the 18-month undetected period reflects individual practitioner failure rather than systematic invisibility; all enriched claims maintain their original specificity with concrete mechanisms (developmental timing convergence, pre-existing substrate requirement, starvation spiral persistence post-discontinuation). <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->