Body Dissatisfaction, Dietary Restraint, Depression, and Weight Status in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescence may be a crucial period for developing obesity and associated mental health problems. This study examined the relationship of weight status on body image, eating behavior, and depressive symptoms in youth. METHODS: A survey was conducted on 1490 youth attending grades 7-12. Participants completed questionnaires on body image, eating behavior, and mood and were measured for height and weight to calculate body mass index (BMI). Weight classification was based on the International Obesity Task Force guidelines, whereby youth at or above the 95th BMI percentile for age and sex were classified as obese, those between 85th and 94th BMI percentile as overweight, and those between 5th and 84th BMI percentile as normal weight. Several multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to examine these relationships. RESULTS: Clear relationships emerged between body image and weight classification. Obese youth reported higher body dissatisfaction than overweight youth, who reported more body dissatisfaction than normal weight youth. These effects were independent of age and gender. A relationship was also found for dietary restraint and weight status whereby higher restraint scores were associated with greater adiposity. Similarly, obese youth reported greater depressive symptoms, including anhedonia, negative self-esteem, and higher overall depression scores compared with overweight and normal-weight youth. CONCLUSIONS: Psychopathology in obese youth is well known in clinical samples but this study suggests that obese youth in the community may be at increased risk of developing body dissatisfaction, dietary restraint, and depressive symptoms compared with overweight or normal weight youth.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".