Adolescent body mass index and cognitive performance: a nationwide study of 2.48 million Israeli adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The increased incidence of adolescent obesity over recent decades may be associated with lower cognitive performance than the expected potential. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the association between adolescent body mass index (BMI) and cognitive function. DESIGN: A nationwide, cross-sectional, population-based study. SETTING: Pre-recruitment evaluation for military service during 1967-2018. PARTICIPANTS: All Israeli-born adolescents, 1 459 522 males and 1 027 953 females aged 16 to ≤20 years. EXPOSURES: Weight and height were measured to calculate BMI. MAIN OUTCOME: Cognitive performance was assessed by using a validated intelligence-quotient-equivalent test and was standardized to the year- and sex-Z-score. For 445 385 persons, parental cognitive scores could be identified. Multinomial logistic regression models were applied. RESULTS: Among male adolescents with severe obesity, 29.4% achieved a cognitive score below the 25th percentile, compared with 17.7% among their normal-weight (50th-84th percentile) counterparts. A J-shaped relation was observed between BMI and the odds ratio (OR) for a low cognitive score among male adolescents: underweight, 1.45 (1.43-1.48); overweight, 1.13 (1.12-1.15); mild obesity, 1.36 (1.33-1.39); and severe obesity, 1.58 (1.52-1.64). Similar findings were observed in females. For both sexes, point estimates were overall consistent in models adjusted for sociodemographic confounders, coexisting morbidities, and parental cognitive scores. Examinees with abnormal BMI had higher ORs for a lower-than-expected cognitive score, based on their parents' data as adolescents, in a manner that depends on obesity severity. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Obesity, is associated with increased odds for a lower cognitive performance, and the inability to fully achieve cognitive potential, regardless of sociodemographic background.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".