Neuroanatomical correlates of food addiction and obesity in the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The food addiction model suggests neurobiological similarities between substance-related and addictive disorders and obesity. While structural brain differences have been consistently reported in these conditions, little is known about the neuroanatomical correlates of food addiction. We therefore assessed whether food addiction, assessed with the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS), related to obesity, personality and brain structure in a large population-based sample (n=625; 20-59 years old, 45% women). A higher YFAS symptom score correlated with obesity and disinhibited eating. In a whole-brain analysis, YFAS symptom score was not associated with cortical thickness nor subcortical gray matter volumes. Higher body mass index (BMI) correlated with reduced thickness of (pre)frontal, temporal and occipital cortex. Bayes factor analysis suggested that BMI and - to a smaller extent - YFAS symptom score contributed independently to right lateral orbitofrontal cortex thickness. Our study shows that food addiction is not associated with neuroanatomical differences in a large population-based sample, and does not account for the major part of obesity-associated gray matter alterations. Yet, food addiction might explain additional variance in orbitofrontal cortex, a hub area of the reward network. Longitudinal studies implementing both anatomical and functional MRI could further disentangle the neural mechanisms of addictive eating behaviors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".