The Effects of Food Advertisements on Food Intake and Neural Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Experimental Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food advertisements are ubiquitous in our daily environment. However, the relationships between exposure to food advertising and outcomes related to ingestive behavior require further investigation. The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral and neural responses to food advertising in experimental studies. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for articles published from January 2014 to November 2021 using a search strategy following PRISMA guidelines. Experimental studies conducted with human participants were included. A random-effects inverse-variance meta-analysis was performed on standardized mean differences (SMD) of food intake (behavioral outcome) between the food advertisement and nonfood advertisement conditions of each study. Subgroup analyses were performed by age, BMI group, study design, and advertising media type. A seed-based d mapping meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies was performed to evaluate neural activity between experimental conditions. Nineteen articles were eligible for inclusion, 13 for food intake (n = 1303) and 6 for neural activity (n = 303). The pooled analysis of food intake revealed small, but statistically significant, effects of increased intake after viewing food advertising compared with the control condition among adults and children (adult SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.28; P = 0.01; I2 = 0; 95% CI: 0, 95.0%; Children SMD: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.37; P < 0.0001; I2 = 60.4%; 95% CI: 25.6%, 79.0%). The neuroimaging studies involved children only, and the pooled analysis corrected for multiple comparisons identified one significant cluster, the middle occipital gyrus, with increased activity after food advertising exposure compared with the control condition (peak coordinates: 30, −86, 12; z-value: 6.301, size: 226 voxels; P < 0.001). These findings suggest that acute exposure to food advertising increases food intake among children and adults and that the middle occipital gyrus is an implicated brain region among children. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022311357)
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 | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".