Associations between eating behaviours and cardiometabolic risk among adolescents in the Health Outcomes and Measures of the Environment study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eating behaviours are associated with childhood obesity, but their associations with cardiometabolic risk are less clear. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated cross-sectional associations between eating behaviours and cardiometabolic risk among 185 adolescents (age 12.4 ± 0.7 years; 53% female; body mass index (BMI)-z 0.72 ± 1.37) from Cincinnati, Ohio (HOME Study; enrolled 2003-2006). METHODS: Caregivers assessed adolescents' eating behaviours with the Child Eating Behaviour Questionnaire. We computed adolescents' cardiometabolic risk scores based on HOMA-IR, triglycerides to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, adiponectin to leptin ratio, systolic blood pressure, and cross-sectional area of fat inside the abdominal cavity. Using multivariable linear regression models, we estimated associations of eating behaviour subscales with cardiometabolic risk scores or individual risk components. RESULTS: Emotional overeating (ß = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.67, 2.01), food responsiveness (ß = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.41, 1.57), and emotional undereating (ß = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.21) were associated with higher cardiometabolic risk scores. Satiety responsiveness (ß = -0.79, 95% CI: -1.59, 0.00) was associated with lower cardiometabolic risk scores. Adjusting for adolescent BMI-z at age 12 attenuated these associations, suggesting that adiposity may mediate these associations. CONCLUSION: Hedonistic eating behaviours were associated with higher cardiometabolic risk in these adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".