The Psychological, Cognitive, and Behavioural Effects of Starvation in Humans: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has highlighted the physical complications of starvation, but there is less research examining the psychological effects of starvation in humans. AIMS: This scoping review synthesises literature on the non-physical effects of starvation in humans. METHOD: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Global Health for studies published between 1946 and 2023 examining the non-physical effects of starvation in individuals aged 2-79 years, including those who were starved, malnourished, stunted, wasted, underweight, had a restrictive eating disorder, or were raised in famine conditions. RESULTS: From 16,555 abstracts, 851 articles on the effects of malnutrition were reviewed, and 318 were included. Among these, 35% focused on children and adolescents, 25.5% on adults with comorbid illnesses, 17% on older adults, 13% on those with eating disorders, 6% on adults without comorbidities, and 3.5% on famine survivors. Cognitive impairments were the most frequently reported effects in children. In adults and older adults, depression and anxiety were common, along with reduced cognitive functioning, reduced quality of life, social withdrawal, impaired sleep and impaired sexual functioning. Individuals with eating disorders experienced depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, emotion regulation difficulties, and cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive evidence showing the detrimental non-physical consequences of starvation in children and adults. These findings should inform research, clinical interventions, and educational materials addressing the effects of insufficient nutrition, including in those with restrictive eating disorders.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".