Steep discounting of delayed monetary and food rewards in obesity: a meta-analysis
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
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of studies have investigated delay discounting (DD) in relation to obesity, but with mixed findings. This meta-analysis synthesized the literature on the relationship between monetary and food DD and obesity, with three objectives: (1) to characterize the relationship between DD and obesity in both case-control comparisons and continuous designs; (2) to examine potential moderators, including case-control v. continuous design, money v. food rewards, sample sex distribution, and sample age (18 years); and (3) to evaluate publication bias. METHOD: From 134 candidate articles, 39 independent investigations yielded 29 case-control and 30 continuous comparisons (total n = 10 278). Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Cohen's d as the effect size. Publication bias was evaluated using fail-safe N, Begg-Mazumdar and Egger tests, meta-regression of publication year and effect size, and imputation of missing studies. RESULTS: The primary analysis revealed a medium effect size across studies that was highly statistically significant (d = 0.43, p < 10-14). None of the moderators examined yielded statistically significant differences, although notably larger effect sizes were found for studies with case-control designs, food rewards and child/adolescent samples. Limited evidence of publication bias was present, although the Begg-Mazumdar test and meta-regression suggested a slightly diminishing effect size over time. CONCLUSIONS: Steep DD of food and money appears to be a robust feature of obesity that is relatively consistent across the DD assessment methodologies and study designs examined. These findings are discussed in the context of research on DD in drug addiction, the neural bases of DD in obesity, and potential clinical applications.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it