The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire and BMI in adolescents: results from the Québec Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating behaviour traits are associated with body weight variations in adults. The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) measures cognitive restraint, disinhibition and hunger, as well as their corresponding subscales, e.g. rigid and flexible control. The TFEQ has not been widely used in adolescents to investigate eating behaviour traits associated with body weight. The aim of the present study was to assess whether eating behaviour traits were associated with BMI in male and female adolescents. Sixty adolescents (thirty females and thirty males; mean age 15.0 (sd 2.4) years) from the Québec Family Study completed the TFEQ and 3 d dietary records. There were no sex differences in the TFEQ scores. Rigid control, disinhibition and emotional susceptibility (to overeat) were positively related to BMI z-scores for the entire sample (r 0.3, P < 0.05). There was a positive relationship between BMI z-scores and rigid control (r 0.39, P < 0.05) in females, while BMI z-scores were positively related to emotional susceptibility (r 0.42, P < 0.02) and disinhibition (r 0.41, P < 0.03) in males. Adolescents characterised by both high disinhibition and high rigid control had significantly higher BMI z-scores than those by both low disinhibition and low rigid control. There were no significant differences in BMI z-scores between the flexible control categories. Dietary macronutrient content was not consistently related to eating behaviour traits. These results show that the eating behaviour traits of disinhibition and rigid control are independently related to BMI z-scores in this group of adolescents.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".