Associations Between Body Weight and Personality Disorders in a Nationally Representative Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether, in the general population, individuals in numerous abnormal body weight categories had higher odds of having personality disorders (PDs) than normal-weight individuals. Although personality functioning is hypothesized to be associated with body weight, there is a dearth of empirical evaluation of this topic. METHODS: The association of body weight (five categories: underweight [body mass index [BMI] <18.5]; normal [18.5 <or= BMI <25]; overweight [25 <or= BMI <30]; obese [30 <or= BMI <40]; and extremely obese [BMI >or=40]) with personality disorders was investigated using data from the nationally representative National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) (n = 43,093). Lifetime paranoid, schizoid, antisocial, histrionic, avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive PDs were examined, as assessed by the Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-DSM-IV version (AUDADIS-IV). RESULTS: After adjusting for sociodemographics, Axis I disorders, schizophrenia, physical health conditions, and comorbid PDs, extreme obesity was associated with antisocial or avoidant PDs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) range = 1.66-1.73), whereas underweight was associated with increased odds of schizoid PD (AOR = 1.89). The pattern of associations differed when stratified by gender. Overweight men had lower odds of paranoid PD (AOR = 0.73). Women with higher-than-normal body weights had higher odds of paranoid, antisocial, and avoidant PDs (AOR range = 1.33-2.50), whereas underweight women more often met the criteria for schizoid PD (AOR = 1.95). CONCLUSIONS: Higher-than-normal body weight is associated with paranoid, antisocial, and avoidant PDs for women, whereas overweight men have lower rates of paranoid PD and underweight women have higher odds of schizoid PD. Possible clinical implications of this research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".