A Prospective Exploration of Cognitive Dietary Restraint, Subclinical Ovulatory Disturbances, Cortisol, and Change in Bone Density over Two Years in Healthy Young Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Cross-sectional studies have found associations among elevated cognitive dietary restraint (CDR), increased ovulatory disturbances, and lower bone mass, possibly mediated by cortisol. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether healthy young women with higher CDR have more menstrual cycles with subclinical ovulatory disturbances (SOD), elevated 24-h urinary free cortisol (UFC), and less positive 2-yr areal bone mineral density change (Delta-aBMD). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a 2-yr longitudinal study of 123 healthy, community-dwelling, nonobese, regularly menstruating women aged 19-35 yr. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Key variables were Three Factor Eating Questionnaire Restraint score, percent of cycles with anvoluation and/or luteal phase length <10 d (%SOD), UFC, and Delta-aBMD at the lumbar spine (L1-L4), total hip, and whole body. Anthropometrics, general stress, physical activity, and energy intake were measured. Adjusting for potential confounders, differences were examined by general linear modeling using median split of CDR score and %SOD. RESULTS: Women with higher CDR had higher %SOD (56 vs. 34%, P < 0.001) and higher UFC (28.0 vs. 24.0 microg/d, P = 0.021). Delta-aBMD did not differ by CDR. Women with higher %SOD had less positive Delta-aBMD at L1-L4 (0.7 vs. 1.9%, P = 0.034) and hip (-0.6 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.001), and higher CDR score (8.7 vs. 7.1, P = 0.04). Physical activity, general stress, body mass index, and energy intake did not explain differences by CDR or %SOD. UFC was not associated with %SOD or Delta-aBMD. CONCLUSION: Women with more frequent SOD reported higher CDR and experienced less positive Delta-aBMD. Although women with higher CDR had higher UFC, the mechanism linking CDR, SOD, and aBMD is not clear.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".