Body fat and muscularity dissatisfaction are not prospectively associated with psychological wellbeing among sexual minority men: A case for separating within- and between-person variation in examinations of body image phenomena and their outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive cross-sectional research reports that body fat and muscularity dissatisfaction contribute to negative psychological outcomes among sexual minority men; however, longitudinal models are necessary for accurately quantifying the strength and direction of these relationships. We investigated the bidirectional longitudinal relationships of body fat and muscularity dissatisfaction with psychological quality of life among 2953 sexual minority men using random intercept cross-lagged panel models. Consistent with existing literature, we found that higher average muscularity and body fat dissatisfaction were associated with higher average psychological quality of life impairment between-persons. Unexpectedly, these constructs were not significantly associated within-persons/longitudinally. These findings conflict existing literature’s conclusions that muscularity and body fat dissatisfaction consistently contribute to poorer psychological wellbeing in this population. A significant between-person relationship in the absence of within-person relationships suggests that intermediary constructs (e.g., body ideal internalization) may account for the between-person effects of muscularity and body fat dissatisfaction on psychological wellbeing. Future research can accurately estimate these effects and identify reliable intervention targets by ensuring that within- and between-person relationships are examined separately, rather than being conflated. • Body fat dissatisfaction did not predict psychological QoL impairment over time. • Muscularity dissatisfaction did not predict psychological QoL impairment over time. • These constructs were associated between-persons only. • Future studies must account for between- and within-person relationships separately. • Separating these effects enables the identification of accurate intervention targets.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".