Dietary fat preference and adolescent obesity: Genes, environments and possible brain mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O develops through multifactorial pathways that include brain-reward mechanisms regulating food intake and addictive behavior. Prenatal exposure to maternal cigarette smoking (PEMCS) is a well-established risk factor of obesity, but the underlying mechanisms are not known. Our recent research in the Saguenay Youth Study suggests that PEMCS may increase risk for obesity through subtle changes in the brain-reward system that promote preference for fat and that may in part develop through the combination of genetic and epigenetic variations in the opioid receptor mu 1 gene (OPRM1). In particular, we have shown that: • PEMCS increases risk for obesity in adolescence (Obesity, 2010), and it may do so by enhancing dietary preference for fat, an effect associated with subtle structural changes in brain regions processing reward (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2012). • PEMCS increases drug experimentation in adolescence, which is also an effect associated with subtle structural changes in brain regions processing reward (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2009). • Dietary preference for fat is modulated by OPRM1, encoding a receptor expressed in the brain areas processing reward and known to regulate fat preference in animals (Molecular Psychiatry, 2013). • The effect of the 'protective' (fat preference-lowering) OPRM1 allele is not present among adolescents with PEMCS. Our preliminary results suggest that this geneenvironment interaction (i.e., silencing of the 'protective' allele in 'exposed' but not'non-exposed' adolescents) may be due to PEMCS-induced epigenetic modifications of OPRM1. This research brings together two important public-health domains: Metabolic health (obesity) and mental health (addiction). Zdenka Pausova, J Obes Weight Loss Ther 2013, 3:7 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2165-7904.S1.010
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".