Is obesity associated with taste alterations? a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity is a growing chronic public health problem. The causes of obesity are varied, but food consumption decisions play an important role, especially decisions about what foods to eat and how much to consume. Food consumption decisions are driven, in part, by individual taste perceptions, a fact that can influence eating behavior and, therefore, body mass. Methodology: The searches were conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs, and the grey literature (Google Scholar and Open Grey). The acronym PECO will be used, covering studies with adult humans (P) who have obesity (E) compared to adult humans without obesity (C), having as an outcome the presence of taste alterations (O). After searching, duplicates were removed. The articles were first evaluated by title and abstract, following the inclusion and exclusion criteria; then, the papers were read in full. After the studies were selected, two reviewers extracted the data and assessed the individual risk of bias and control statements for possible confounders and bias consideration. The narrative GRADE system performed the methodological quality assessment using the New Castle Ottawa qualifier and analysis of certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 3782 records were identified from the database search, of these 19 were considered eligible. Forty percent of the eligible studies show that there was an association between obesity and different taste alterations for different flavors comparing with normal weights adults. In the methodological quality analysis of the nineteen studies, which assesses the risk of bias in the results, fifteen showed good methodological reliability, three showed fair methodological reliability, and one showed low methodological reliability. Conclusion: Despite methodological limitations, the results of the studies suggest the existence of a association between obesity and taste alterations, but further investigations with more sensitive methodologies are necessary to confirm this hypothesis. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/9vg4h/, identifier 9vg4h.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".