A prospective study of marital quality and body weight in midlife.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have gone beyond studying marital status to examine effects of marital quality on body weight. This study examined the association of marital quality with weight change and incident obesity in midlife. It differentiated positive and negative components of marital quality considering overall marital quality, marital support, and marital strain. METHOD: Data are from 2,636 adults from the Midlife in the United States study who participated in 2 waves of data collection 10 years apart. Marital quality was self-reported. Body weight was assessed with self-reported height and weight. Generalized estimating equations examined primary associations also considering potential confounders and mediating factors including sociodemographics, baseline health conditions, and health behaviors. RESULTS: Overall marital quality was inversely associated with weight gain (β = -0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.38, -0.01]). Marital support was inversely related to both weight gain (β = -1.48, 95% CI [-2.80, -0.16]) and incident obesity (risk ratio = 0.79, 95% CI [0.65, 0.96]). Marital strain was not associated with either weight change or incident obesity. The association between marital support and incident obesity remained when marital strain was simultaneously included in the model. There was evidence that the associations of marital support and marital strain with incident obesity might differ by gender, and were evident only in men. CONCLUSION: This study shows a supportive marital relationship is associated with healthier body weight in midlife. It also indicates marital support may have effects over and beyond the mere absence of marital strain. Findings suggest the potential utility of involving spouses/partners in obesity prevention and treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 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".