Childhood hyperactivity, eating behaviours, and executive functions: Their association with the development of eating-disorder symptoms in adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies have shown that hyperactivity and impaired executive functioning are associated with symptoms of eating disorders in adolescence and adulthood. Whether hyperactivity and executive functions in early life can prospectively predict the emergence of eating disorder symptoms in adolescence remains unknown. The present study relies on a longitudinal design to investigate how hyperactivity at age 3, eating behaviours at age 3.5 and cognition at ages 3-6 were associated with the development of eating-disorder symptoms from 12 to 20 years old. METHODS: Using archival data collected since 1997 from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development cohort (N = 2, 223), we used Latent Curve Models to analyse predictors of youth's trajectories of eating-disorder symptoms at four timepoints. RESULTS: A quadratic (curvilinear) trajectory of eating-disorder symptoms was found to be most representative of the data. Higher hyperactivity at age 3 was associated with higher levels of eating-disorder symptoms at age 12, and this association was partially mediated by higher levels of overeating and cognitive inflexibility in childhood. Cognitive inflexibility in childhood also mediated the association between hyperactivity at age 3 and increases in eating-disorder symptoms during adolescence. Furthermore, working memory was indirectly related to eating-disorder symptoms via the mediational role of cognitive flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperactivity, overeating, cognitive inflexibility, and working memory early in life might precede the onset of eating-disorder symptoms in adolescence. Early behavioural and cognitive screening may help to identify children who are most at risk for eating disorders. This, in turn, could guide preventive interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".