Table 1 Heritability measures (best fit model) of traits related to ARFID presentation. A summary of twin/family study derived heritability estimates

Fildes et al. (2014) [107]

3.5 ± 0.27 y

Gemini Study: 1343 twin pairs, n = 458 [MZ], n = 872 [DZ], 50.4% female

Instrument: 114 item parent-report questionnaire on food preferences

Vegetable preference

0.54 (0.47–0.63)

–

0.35 (0.27–0.42)

0.11 (0.10–0.13)

Fruit preference

0.53 (0.45–0.61)

–

0.35 (0.26–0.43)

0.13 (0.11–0.15)

Protein preference

0.48 (0.40–0.57)

–

0.37 (0.27–0.45)

0.15 (0.13–0.17)

Dairy preference

0.54 (0.47–0.60)

–

0.54 (0.47–0.60)

0.19 (0.16–0.22)

Starch preference

0.32 (0.26–0.38)

–

0.57 (0.51–0.62)

0.11 (0.10–0.13)

Breen et al. (2006) [108]

4–5 y

Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): 214 same-sex twin pairs, n = 103 [MZ] n = 111 [DZ], 52% female

Instrument: Mother-report questionnaire on food preferences (95 food items)

Vegetable preference

0.37 (0.2–0.58)

–

0.51 (0.30–0.66)

0.13 (.09–.17)

Dessert preference

0.2 (0.04–0.38)

–

0.64 (0.46–0.77)

0.16 (.12–.22)

Meat and fish preference

0.78 (0.63–0.92)

–

0.12 (0.00–0.27)

0.10 (.08–.12)

Fruit preference

0.51 (0.37–0.68)

–

0.32 (0.16–0.46)

0.17 (.14–.20)

Liu et al. (2013) [59]

11–13 y

University of Southern California (USC) Twin study: 358 twin pairs, n = 188 [MZ], n = 170 [DZ]

Instrument: 3 day food diary

Fat intake

0.44 (0.28–0.58)

–

–

0.56 (0.42–0.72)

Protein intake

0.31 (0.13–0.47)

–

–

0.69 (0.53–0.88)

Carbohydrate intake

0.43 (0.25–0.58)

–

–

0.57 (0.42–0.75)

Mineral intake

0.45 (0.29–0.59)

–

–

0.55 (0.41–0.71)

Vitamin intake

0.21 (0.00–0.41)

–

0.04 (0.00–0.34)

0.75 (0.59–0.93)

Fildes et al. (2016) [63]

3.5 ± 0.3 y

Gemini Study: 1330 twin pairs, n = 458 [MZ], n = 872 [DZ], 50.5% female

Instrument: 114 item parent report questionnaire on food preferences [107] + CEBQ [109]

Food fussiness

0.78 (0.73–82)

–

0.05 (0.02–0.09)

0.17 (0.15–0.2)

Smith et al. (2017) [64]

16 m

Gemini Study: 1932 twin pairs, n = 626 [MZ], n = 1306 [DZ], 50.6% female

Instrument: Parent-report CEBQ

Food fussiness

0.46 (0.41–0.52)

–

0.46 (0.40–0.51)

0.09 (0.08–0.10)

Food neophobia

0.58 (0.5–0.67)

–

0.22 (0.14–0.30)

0.19 (0.17–0.22)

Cooke et al. (2007) [65]

8–11 y

Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): 5390 twin pairs, n = 1913 [MZ], 3477 [DZ], 51.4% female

Instrument: 4 item version of CFNS [110]

Food neophobia

0.78 (0.76–0.79)

–

–

0.22 (0.21–0.24)

Knaapila et al. (2007) [66]

Adult

Migraine family study—28 Finnish families: 105 females, 50 males

Instrument: FNS [110] (10 item version) + FNS-R (6 item version of FNS)

Food neophobia

FNS

0.69*

–

0.31

FNSR

0.66 *

–

0.34

UK adult twin registry: 468 female twin pairs, n = 211 [MZ], n = 257 [DZ]

Instrument: FNS [90] (10 item version) + FNS-R (6 item version of FNS)

Food neophobia

FNS

0.10 (0.00–0.56)

0.56 (0.09–0.73)

–

0.33 (0.27–0.41)

FNSR

0.13 (0.00–0.59)

0.53 (0.06–0.72)

–

0.34 (0.28–0.41)

Llewellyn et al. (2010) [111]

Infant (~ 8 m)

Gemini Study: 2334 twin pairs, n = 729 [MZ], n = 1605 [DZ}

Instrument: BEBQ (17 items)[112]

Rate of eating

0.84 (0.79–0.86)

–

0.00 (0.0–0.05)

0.16 (0.14–0.17)

Satiety responsiveness

0.72 (0.65–0.80)

–

0.12 (0.05–0.19)

0.16 (0.14, 0.17)

Feeding responsiveness

0.59 (0.52–0.65)

–

0.30 (0.24, 0.36)

0.11 (0.10, 0.13)

Enjoyment of food

0.53 (0.43–0.63

–

0.45 (0.35, 0.54)

0.03 (0.02, 0.04)

Herle et al. (2017) [113]

5 y

Gemini Study: 1027 twin pairs, n = 346 [MZ], n = 681 [DZ]. Instrument: CEBQ

Emotional over eating

0.07 (0.06–0.09)

–

0.90 (0.89–0.92)

0.02 (0.02–0.03)

Emotional under eating

0.07 (0.06–0.09)

–

0.91 (0.90–0.92)

0.02 (0.02–0.02)

Taylor et al. (2018) [114]

9–12 y

Child and Adolescent Twin Study in Sweden (CATSS): 12,419 twin pairs, n = 3586 [MZ], n = 8833 [DZ]

Instrument: A-TAC Perception module (5 items) [115]

Sensory reactivity

Males

0.71 (0.68–0.74)

–

–

0.29 (0.26–0.32)

Females

0.66 (0.61–0.69)

–

–

0.34 (0.31–0.39)