MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390016423 · doi:10.2196/52193

Effects of Episodic Food Insecurity on Psychological and Physiological Responses in African American Women With Obesity (RESPONSES): Protocol for a Longitudinal Observational Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4390016423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Candice A. Myers, Robbie A. Beyl, Daniel S. Hsia, Melissa Harris, Isabella Reed, Danielle D Eliser, Lauren Bagneris, John W. Apolzan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsObservational studyFood insecurityPsychologyObesityClinical psychologyCohort studyAfrican americanLongitudinal studyCohortEnvironmental healthGerontologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyDemographyFood securityBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is a risk factor for multiple chronic diseases, including obesity. Importantly, both food insecurity and obesity are more prevalent in African American women than in other groups. Furthermore, food insecurity is considered a cyclic phenomenon, with episodes of food adequacy (ie, enough food to eat) and food shortage (ie, not enough food to eat). More research is needed to better understand why food insecurity is linked to obesity, including acknowledging the episodic nature of food insecurity as a stressor and identifying underlying mechanisms. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the episodic nature of food insecurity as a stressor via responses in body weight and psychological and physiological parameters longitudinally and do so in a health-disparate population-African American women. METHODS: ) to measure (1) daily body weight remotely over 22 weeks and (2) psychological and physiological parameters via clinic assessments at the beginning and end of the 22-week study. Furthermore, we are assessing episodes of food insecurity, stress, hedonic eating, and appetite on a weekly basis. We hypothesize that food-insecure African American women with obesity will demonstrate increased body weight and changes in psychological and physiological end points, whereas food-secure African American women with obesity will not. We are also examining associations between changes in psychological and physiological parameters and changes in body weight and performing a mediation analysis on the psychological parameters assessed at the study midpoint. Psychological questionnaires are used to assess stress; executive function, decision-making, and motivation; and affect and nonhomeostatic eating. Physiological measurements are used to evaluate the levels of cortisol, dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate (DHEA-S), C-reactive protein, thyroid hormones, blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and insulin, as well as allostatic load. RESULTS: . All data are anticipated to be collected by the end of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that this is the first study to examine changes in body weight and psychological and physiological factors in food-insecure African American women with obesity. This study has significant public health implications because it addresses the cyclic nature of food insecurity to identify underlying mechanisms that can be targeted to mitigate the adverse relationship between food insecurity and obesity and reduce health disparities in minority populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05076487; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05076487. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52193.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.689
GPT teacher head0.660
Teacher spread0.028 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations→French-language works237,207→