The impact of obesity on neuropsychological functioning in adults with and without major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests obesity exerts a negative impact on cognition. Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is also linked to problems in cognitive functioning. Obesity is highly prevalent in individuals with MDD and is linked to a failure to return to a full level of functioning. The study's objective was to investigate the effect of obesity on cognitive impairment in participants with MDD. METHODS: This study compared cognitive performance in obese individuals with MDD and two control populations (obese individuals without a psychiatric illness and non-obese controls). A standardized battery of neuropsychological tests specifically designed to assess performance in declarative memory, executive functioning, processing speed and attention was administered. Mood ratings, physical measurements, nutritional and health questionnaires were also completed. RESULTS: We observed a consistent pattern across measures of memory, executive functioning, attention and processing speed. Whereas healthy controls performed better than both bariatric groups across the majority of measures administered, bariatric controls tended to outperform bariatric MDD patients. LIMITATIONS: The overall sample size of our study was small and thus largely explorative in nature. However, it provides compelling results (while controlling for extraneous variables such as medication load, nutritional status and common metabolic comordidities) that strongly urges for further investigation and study replication with larger sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: We found obesity has a subtle impact on cognition in obese individuals, and when obesity is present in individuals with MDD, this impact may be significant. It is important to minimize all modifiable variables that can add to cognitive burden in this population.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".