The Association of Early Childhood Cognitive Development and Behavioural Difficulties with Pre-Adolescent Problematic Eating Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Few studies have prospectively investigated associations of child cognitive ability and behavioural difficulties with later eating attitudes. We investigated associations of intelligence quotient (IQ), academic performance and behavioural difficulties at 6.5 years with eating attitudes five years later. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study nested within the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial, Belarus. Of 17,046 infants enrolled at birth, 13,751 (80.7%) completed the Children's Eating Attitude Test (ChEAT) at 11.5 years, most with information on IQ (n = 12,667), academic performance (n = 9,954) and behavioural difficulties (n = 11,098) at 6.5 years. The main outcome was a ChEAT score ≥ 85th percentile, indicative of problematic eating attitudes. RESULTS: Boys with higher IQ at 6.5 years reported fewer problematic eating attitudes, as assessed by ChEAT scores ≥ 85th percentile, at 11.5 years (OR per SD increase in full-scale IQ = 0.87; 0.79, 0.94). No such association was observed in girls (1.01; 0.93, 1.10) (p for sex-interaction = 0.016). In both boys and girls, teacher-assessed academic performance in non-verbal subjects was inversely associated with high ChEAT scores five years later (OR per unit increase in mathematics ability = 0.88; 0.82, 0.94; and OR per unit increase in ability for other non-verbal subjects = 0.86; 0.79, 0.94). Behavioural difficulties were positively associated with high ChEAT scores five years later (OR per SD increase in teacher-assessed rating = 1.13; 1.07, 1.19). CONCLUSION: Lower IQ, worse non-verbal academic performance and behavioural problems at early school age are positively associated with risk of problematic eating attitudes in early adolescence.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".