Body mass index–dependent shifts along large-scale gradients in human cortical organization explain dietary regulatory success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making healthy dietary choices is essential for keeping weight within a normal range. Yet many people struggle with dietary self-control despite good intentions. What distinguishes neural processing in those who succeed or fail to implement healthy eating goals? Does this vary by weight status? To examine these questions, we utilized an analytical framework of gradients that characterize systematic spatial patterns of large-scale neural activity, which have the advantage of considering the entire suite of processes subserving self-control and potential regulatory tactics at the whole-brain level. Using an established laboratory food task capturing brain responses in natural and regulatory conditions (N = 123), we demonstrate that regulatory changes of dietary brain states in the gradient space predict individual differences in dietary success. Better regulators required smaller shifts in brain states to achieve larger goal-consistent changes in dietary behaviors, pointing toward efficient network organization. This pattern was most pronounced in individuals with lower weight status (low-BMI, body mass index) but absent in high-BMI individuals. Consistent with prior work, regulatory goals increased activity in frontoparietal brain circuits. However, this shift in brain states alone did not predict variance in dietary success. Instead, regulatory success emerged from combined changes along multiple gradients, showcasing the interplay of different large-scale brain networks subserving dietary control and possible regulatory strategies. Our results provide insights into how the brain might solve the problem of dietary control: Dietary success may be easier for people who adopt modes of large-scale brain activation that do not require significant reconfigurations across contexts and goals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".