Relationship between impulsivity, uncontrolled eating and body mass index: a hierarchical model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Impulsivity increases the risk for obesity and weight gain. However, the precise role of impulsivity in the aetiology of overeating behavior and obesity is currently unknown. Here we examined the relationships between personality-related measures of impulsivity, Uncontrolled Eating, BMI, and longitudinal weight changes. Additionally, we analyzed the associations between general impulsivity domains and brain cortical thickness to elucidate brain vulnerability factors related to weight gain. Methods Students in their first year of university - a risky period for weight gain - completed questionnaire measures of impulsivity and eating behavior at the beginning (N = 2318) of the school year. We also collected their weight at the end of the term (N = 1197). Impulsivity was divided into factors stress reactivity, reward sensitivity and lack of self-control. Using structural equation models, we tested the plausibility of a hierarchical relationship, in which impulsivity traits were associated with Uncontrolled Eating, which in turn predicted BMI and weight change. 71 participants underwent T1-weighted MRI to investigate the correlation between impulsivity and cortical thickness. Results Impulsivity traits showed positive correlations with Uncontrolled Eating. Higher scores in Uncontrolled Eating were in turn associated with higher BMI. None of the impulsivity-related measurements nor Uncontrolled Eating were correlated with longitudinal weight gain. Higher stress sensitivity was associated with increased cortical thickness in the superior temporal gyrus. Lack of self-control was positively associated with increased thickness in the superior medial frontal gyrus. Finally, higher reward sensitivity was associated with lower thickness in the inferior frontal gyrus. Conclusion The present study provides a comprehensive characterization of the relationships between different facets of impulsivity and obesity. We show that differences in impulsivity domains might be associated with BMI via Uncontrolled Eating. Our results might inform future clinical strategies aimed at fostering self-control abilities to prevent and/or treat unhealthy weight gain.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".