Examining neural responses to anticipating or receiving monetary rewards and the development of binge eating in youth. A registered report using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binge eating is characterized as eating a large amount of food and feeling a loss of control while eating. However, the neurobiological mechanisms associated with the onset and maintenance of binge eating are largely unknown. Recent neuroimaging work has suggested that increased responsivity within reward regions of the brain to the anticipation or receipt of rewards is related to binge eating; however, limited longitudinal data has precluded understanding of the role of reward responsivity in the development of binge eating. The current study used data from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development® (ABCD) longitudinal study dataset to assess whether heightened neural responses to different phases of reward processing (reward anticipation and receipt) (1) differentiated individuals with binge eating from matched controls, and (2) predicted the onset of binge eating in an "at risk" sample. Consistent with hypotheses, heightened neural responsivity in the right caudate and bilateral VS during reward anticipation differentiated youth with and without binge eating. Moreover, greater VS response to reward anticipation predicted binge eating two years later. Neural responses to reward receipt also were consistent with hypotheses, such that heightened VS and OFC responses differentiated youth with and without binge eating and predicted the presence of binge eating two years later. Findings from the current study suggest that hypersensitivity to rewards may contribute to the development of binge eating during early adolescence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".