The influence of impulsiveness on binge eating and problem gambling: A prospective study of gender differences in Canadian adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the degree to which facets of impulsiveness predicted future binge eating and problem gambling, 2 theorized forms of behavioral addiction. Participants were 596 women and 406 men from 4 age cohorts randomly recruited from a Canadian province. Participants completed self-report measures of 3 facets of impulsiveness (negative urgency, sensation seeking, lack of persistence), binge-eating frequency, and problem-gambling symptoms. Impulsiveness was assessed at baseline, and assessments of binge eating and problem gambling were followed up after 3 years. Weighted data were analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial and Poisson regression models. We found evidence of transdiagnostic and disorder-specific predictors of binge eating and problem gambling. Negative urgency emerged as a common predictor of binge eating and problem gambling among women and men. There were disorder-specific personality traits identified among men only: High lack-of-persistence scores predicted binge eating and high sensation-seeking scores predicted problem gambling. Among women, younger age predicted binge eating and older age predicted problem gambling. Thus, there are gender differences in facets of impulsiveness that longitudinally predict binge eating and problem gambling, suggesting that treatments for these behaviors should consider gender-specific personality and demographic traits in addition to the common personality trait of negative urgency.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".