MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011474091 · doi:10.1503/jpn.190163

The orbitofrontal cortex, food intake and obesity

2020· review· en· W3011474091 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lauren T. Seabrook, Stephanie L. Borgland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrbitofrontal cortexContext (archaeology)ObesityNeurosciencePsychologyCognitionMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPrefrontal cortexEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity is a major health challenge facing many people throughout the world. Increased consumption of palatable, high-caloric foods is one of the major drivers of obesity. Both orexigenic and anorexic states have been thoroughly reviewed elsewhere; here, we focus on the cognitive control of feeding in the context of obesity, and how the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is implicated, based on data from preclinical and clinical research. The OFC is important in decision-making and has been heavily researched in neuropsychiatric illnesses such as addiction and obsessive–compulsive disorder. However, activity in the OFC has only recently been described in research into food intake, obesity and eating disorders. The OFC integrates sensory modalities such as taste, smell and vision, and it has dense reciprocal projections into thalamic, midbrain and striatal regions to fine-tune decision-making. Thus, the OFC may be anatomically and functionally situated to play a critical role in the etiology and maintenance of excess feeding behaviour. We propose that the OFC serves as an integrative hub for orchestrating motivated feeding behaviour and suggest how its neurobiology and functional output might be altered in the obese state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207