Stress and eating: a dual role for bombesin-like peptides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current obesity "epidemic" in the developed world is a major health concern; over half of adult Canadians are now classified as overweight or obese. Although the reasons for high obesity rates remain unknown, an important factor appears to be the role stressors play in overconsumption of food and weight gain. In this context, increased stressor exposure and/or perceived stress may influence eating behavior and food choices. Stress-induced anorexia is often noted in rats exposed to chronic stress (e.g., repeated restraint) and access to standard Chow diet; associated reduced consumption and weight loss. However, if a similar stressor exposure takes place in the presence of palatable, calorie dense food, rats often consume an increase proportion of palatable food relative to Chow, leading to weight gain and obesity. In humans, a similar desire to eat palatable or "comfort" foods has been noted under stressful situations; it is thought that this response may potentially be attributable to stress-buffering properties and/or through activation of reward pathways. The complex interplay between stress-induced anorexia and stress-induced obesity is discussed in terms of the overlapping circuitry and neurochemicals that mediate feeding, stress and reward pathways. In particular, this paper draws attention to the bombesin family of peptides (BBs) initially shown to regulate food intake and subsequently shown to mediate stress response as well. Evidence is presented to support the hypothesis that BBs may be involved in stress-induced anorexia under certain conditions, but that the same peptides could also be involved in stress-induced obesity. This hypothesis is based on the unique distribution of BBs in key cortico-limbic brain regions involved in food regulation, reward, incentive salience and motivationally driven behavior.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".