Executive Functioning in Overweight Individuals with and without Loss‐of‐Control Eating
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to examine executive function (EF) in overweight individuals with and without loss-of-control (LOC) eating. METHOD: Eighty overweight and obese individuals entering a behavioural weight loss trial with (n=18) and without (n=62) LOC eating were administered a clinical interview and neuropsychological battery designed to assess self-regulatory control, planning, delayed discounting and working memory. RESULTS: After controlling for age, IQ and depression, individuals with LOC eating performed worse on tasks of planning and self-regulatory control and did not differ in performance on other tasks. DISCUSSION: Results indicate that overweight individuals with LOC eating display relative deficits in EF compared with overweight individuals without LOC eating. Planning and self-regulatory control deficits in particular may contribute to dysregulated eating patterns, increasing susceptibility to LOC episodes. Future research should examine how EF deficits relate to treatment outcome.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it