Food Addiction is Associated with Higher Neuroticism, Lower Conscientiousness, Higher Impulsivity, but Lower Extraversion in Obese Patient Candidates for Bariatric Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The “food addiction” phenotype identifies a subpopulation of individuals experiencing substance-dependence symptoms toward specific foods. In the current debate on whether the “food addiction” phenotype should be considered as an addictive disorder, assessment of the personality traits associated with this phenotype would provide arguments for or against the “food addiction” phenotype and its inclusion in the “substance-related and addictive disorder” category. Objectives: To assess the personality characteristics associated with the “food addiction” phenotype in obesity surgery candidates (i.e., big five personality dimensions, alexithymia and impulsivity). Methods: We assessed food addiction (Yale Food Addiction Scale), personality dimensions (Big Fig Inventory), impulsivity (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11th version) and alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 items) in 188 bariatric surgery candidates recruited between July 2013 and November 2015 in the Nutrition Department of the University Hospital of Tours. We used chi-squared tests and Student's tests or Mann-Whitney-U-tests to determine the factors associated with food addiction. Results: Prevalence of current food addiction was 16.5%. Patients with (vs. without) food addiction had lower conscientiousness (p = .047), higher neuroticism and lower extraversion (ps < 0.001), but there was no difference in terms of agreeableness (p = 0.42) or openness (p = 0.16). They were more frequently single (p = .021) and reported higher alexithymia (ps < .001) and higher impulsivity sub-scores (ps<.05). Conclusions/Importance: Food addiction shares personality traits with substance-related disorders (regarding neuroticism, conscientiousness, impulsivity, alexithymia), and one distinctive trait (low extraversion). This study provides additional data that enrich the discussion on whether the “food addiction” phenotype should be included or not in the “substance-related and addictive disorder” category.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".