Association of Psychobehavioral Variables With HOMA-IR and BMI Differs for Men and Women With Prediabetes in the PREVIEW Lifestyle Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Stress, sleep, eating behavior, and physical activity are associated with weight change and insulin resistance (IR). The aim of this analysis was the assessment of the overall and sex-specific associations of psychobehavioral variables throughout the 3-year PREVIEW intervention using the homeostatic model assessment of IR (HOMA-IR), BMI, and length of time in the study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Associations of psychobehavioral variables, including stress, mood, eating behavior, physical activity (PA), and sleep, with BMI, HOMA-IR, and time spent in the study were assessed in 2,184 participants with prediabetes and overweight/obesity (n = 706 men; n = 1,478 women) during a 3-year lifestyle intervention using linear mixed modeling and general linear modeling. The study was a randomized multicenter trial using a 2 × 2 diet-by-PA design. RESULTS Overall, cognitive restraint and PA increased during the intervention compared with baseline, whereas BMI, HOMA-IR, disinhibition, hunger, and sleepiness decreased (all P < 0.05). Cognitive restraint and PA were negatively, whereas disinhibition, hunger, stress, and total mood disturbance were positively, associated with both BMI and HOMA-IR. Sleep duration, low sleep quality, total mood disturbance, disinhibition, and hunger scores were positively associated with HOMA-IR for men only. Participants who dropped out at 6 months had higher stress and total mood disturbance scores at baseline and throughout their time spent in the study compared with study completers. CONCLUSIONS Eating behavior and PA, control of stress, mood disturbance, and sleep characteristics were associated with BMI, HOMA-IR, and time spent in the study, with different effects in men and women during the PREVIEW lifestyle intervention study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".