Relationships among cognitive dietary restraint, subclinical ovulation disturbances, cortisol and 2‐yr change in bone density in premenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive dietary restraint (CDR) is the perception of limiting food intake to achieve/maintain a perceived ideal body weight. The objective of this 2‐yr prospective study was to determine if women with higher CDR have more subclinical ovulation disturbances (SOD; anovulation or luteal phase <10 d), elevated cortisol excretion and less positive changes in areal bone mineral density over two years (ΔaBMD). Participants were 123 healthy, non‐obese, regularly menstruating women aged 19–35. Annually participants completed questionnaires (Three Factor Eating Questionnaire, physical activity, general stress, dietary intake), anthropometrics and 24‐hr urine collections for measurement of 24‐hr urinary free cortisol (UFC). At baseline and final follow‐up, dual energy x‐ray absorptiometry scans measured ΔaBMD at the lumbar spine (L1‐4), hip and total body. Quantitative waking temperature was used to determine SOD frequency. SOD correlated positively with CDR and inversely with hip ΔaBMD but not with UFC. CDR and UFC were not associated with each other or ΔaBMD. Women with higher CDR had more SOD. Women with more SOD had less positive ΔaBMD and higher CDR. Physical activity, general stress, body mass and energy intake did not explain differences by CDR or SOD. In conclusion, CDR was the only study variable associated with SOD which was associated with less positive ΔaBMD. Canadian Institutes of Health Research 79563. Grant Funding Source : Canadian Institute of Health Research
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".