Do executive functioning deficits underpin binge eating disorder? A comparison of overweight women with and without binge eating pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Deficits in executive function (EF)-including inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, decision-making, and working memory-may be risk or maintenance factors for binge eating disorder (BED). However, there is mixed evidence regarding EF deficits in individuals with BED. Significant methodological weaknesses (e.g., use of a single EF measure, omission of relevant covariates) in the current literature represent one reason for lack of consensus. METHOD: This study compared EF in a sample of overweight women with (n = 31) and without (n = 43) full or subthreshold BED, with the aim of conducting a multifaceted investigation of the neurocognitive profile of BED. A neuropsychological battery of EF was administered to all participants. RESULTS: After controlling for IQ and age, individuals with binge eating displayed significantly poorer performance on tasks of problem-solving and inhibitory control, and displayed higher prioritization of immediate versus delayed rewards, but the two groups did not appear to differ on set-shifting, working memory, and risk taking. Differences in inhibitory control were no longer statistically significant when depressive symptomology was added as a covariate and correction for multiple comparisons was applied. Exploratory analyses indicated that full and sub-threshold BED groups did not differ in EF. DISCUSSION: Results partially support the hypothesis of relative EF deficits in individuals with BED, suggesting that binge eating may be maintained by cognitive factors distinct from those of obesity. Future research should aim to replicate with a larger sample, control for a wider range of psychiatric comorbidities, and examine whether EF deficits predict treatment outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".