Perceived racial discrimination and eating habits: a systematic review and conceptual models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: There is no systematic review on the relationship between racial discrimination and eating habits. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to synthesize evidence on the association between perceived racial discrimination (PRD) and eating habits. A conceptual model was developed to depict the most common mechanisms used to explain this association. DATA SOURCES: Articles were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and PsycINFO databases from inception to January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Only observational studies were included, and there were no restrictions on age, racial group, or country. Two reviewers selected the articles independently. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. The assessment of methodological quality was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: All studies retrieved were conducted among the US population. Nineteen studies were included. On average, the studies showed a methodological quality of 66%. Forty-six associations were evaluated: 38 between PRD and negative eating habits, 29 between PRD and eating behavior, and 17 between PRD and food consumption. CONCLUSIONS: PRD negatively affects eating habits. A conceptual framework based on ecosocial theory is suggested as a guide for future research. Further studies in different countries (beyond the United States) should be conducted to understand how racial discrimination affects eating habits within different ethnic, cultural, social, and economic contexts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019142605.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".