Examination of Shared Risk and Protective Factors for Overweight and Disordered Eating Among Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify shared risk and protective factors for purging, binge eating, and overweight. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Population-based questionnaires of children and adolescents residing across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Girls (n = 6022) and boys (n = 4518), aged 11 to 17 years in 1998, in the ongoing Growing Up Today Study. MAIN EXPOSURES: Putative risk and protective factors within the psychological, behavioral, and socioenvironmental domains. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overweight, use of laxatives or purging (vomiting), and binge eating. Because of the low prevalence of purging, we did not examine shared factors for this behavior among boys. RESULTS: In 1998, a total of 219 girls (3.7%) and 30 boys (0.7%) reported purging behaviors, 426 girls (7.1%) and 90 boys (2.0%) reported binge eating, and 1019 girls (17.4%) and 1040 boys (24.6%) were overweight. From 1999 through 2001, 331 girls (7.8%) initiated purging behaviors, 503 girls (11.8%) and 132 boys (4.5%) initiated binge eating behaviors, and 424 girls (10.0%) and 382 boys (13.6%) became overweight. Concern for weight was directly associated with all 3 weight-related problems among boys and girls. Among girls, dieting, parental weight-related teasing, and family meal frequency had a shared effect on the weight-related problems examined. CONCLUSIONS: Factors within the psychological, behavioral, and socioenvironmental domains may have a shared effect on purging, binge eating, and overweight. Further research is needed to determine if an intervention designed to address these shared risk and protective factors is effective in simultaneously reducing these weight-related problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".