Food cravings, appetite, and snack-food consumption in response to a psychomotor stimulant drug: the moderating effect of “food-addictionâ€
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is mounting evidence that many highly processed foods have addictive properties, and that some cases of compulsive overeating resemble an addiction disorder. While support for the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) as a valid diagnostic tool has been impressive and continues to increase, to date, no research has examined the food-addiction construct in response to an actual food stimulus, and in relation to direct measures of appetite and food consumption. As part of a larger community-based study of overeating in healthy adults who were predominately overweight and obese (aged 25-50 years), 136 participants completed the YFAS, of whom 23 met the diagnostic criteria for food-addiction. They took part in a 2-day, double-blind, cross-over, single-dose drug challenge using a psychomotor stimulant (methylphenidate) and placebo. Participants were first assessed on ratings of appetite and food cravings after holding and tasting their favorite snack food, after which they were able to eat all or part of the snack, as they wished. Three separate repeated-measures analysis-of-variance procedures were carried out, each with two between-subjects factors (Diagnosis: food-addiction vs. non-food addiction) and (Sex: male vs. female) and 1 within-subjects factor (Days: drug vs. placebo). As anticipated, for all three dependent variables, there was a significant main effect for Days with a response decrease from placebo to the drug condition. With respect to food cravings and appetite ratings, results indicated that the food addiction group had significantly higher scores on both variables. For food consumption, there was a significant Days × Diagnosis interaction whereby the food-addiction group showed no food-intake suppression across days compared to the non-food-addiction group who demonstrated a significant decrease in snack-food consumption with methylphenidate. The finding that the food-addiction group was resistant to the food-intake suppression typically induced by a dopamine agonist supports evidence of dopamine signaling-strength differences in individuals with compulsive overeating compared to those without this disorder. This represents the first demonstration that individuals defined by their food-addiction status have a unique pattern of food-intake following a pharmacologic challenge with such agents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".