Body Image and Lifestyle Behaviors in High School Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This secondary data analysis study aimed to examine the associations between 1) body size perception (BSP) and body size dissatisfaction (BSD) and 2) lifestyle behaviors and BSP and BSD in adolescents. The study pooled cross-sectional data from two studies (n = 301) performed in adolescents. Weight and height were measured, while lifestyle behaviors and perceived actual and desired body size variables were self-reported. Linear regression analysis assessed the contribution of sex and zBMI to BSP and BSD scores. Pearson’s correlation explored associations between BSP and BSD. Cohen’s effect sizes compared satisfied and dissatisfied adolescents within the underestimators subgroup. A positive association between BSP and BSD scores was observed among girls living with normal-weight and overweight/obesity only (r = 0.26; p ≤ 0.001 and r = 0.38; p < 0.05, respectively). Underestimators who were satisfied with their body size showed a moderate effect size for a lower zBMI, a small effect size for lower screen time, and higher sleep duration compared to dissatisfied underestimators. Underestimation was associated with more body size satisfaction in adolescent girls with normal weight and overweight/obesity, suggesting a protective effect of underestimation. These findings support the hypothesis that body size satisfaction and underestimation in adolescents is associated with healthier lifestyle behaviors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".