MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409265596 · doi:10.1038/s44324-025-00056-3

Ultra-processed food consumption affects structural integrity of feeding-related brain regions independent of and via adiposity

2025· article· en· W4409265596 on OpenAlexafffund
Filip Morys, Arsene Kanyamibwa, Daniel Fängström, Max Tweedale, Alexandre Pastor‐Bernier, Houman Azizi, Lang Liu, Annette Horstmann, Alain Dagher

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Metabolic Health and Disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaHelsingin YliopistoCanada First Research Excellence FundJenny ja Antti Wihurin RahastoMcGill University
KeywordsFood consumptionStructural integrityFood scienceConsumption (sociology)BiologyEngineeringEconomicsAgricultural economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) increases overall caloric intake and is associated with obesity, cardiovascular disease, and brain pathology. There is scant evidence as to why UPF consumption leads to increased caloric intake and whether the negative health consequences are due to adiposity or characteristics of UPFs. Using the UK Biobank sample, we probed the associations between UPF consumption, adiposity, metabolism, and brain structure. Our analysis reveals that high UPF intake is linked to adverse adiposity and metabolic profiles, alongside cellularity changes in feeding-related subcortical brain areas. These are partially mediated by dyslipidemia, systemic inflammation and body mass index, suggesting that UPFs exert effects on the brain beyond just contributing to obesity. This dysregulation of the network of subcortical feeding-related brain structures may create a self-reinforcing cycle of increased UPF consumption.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Metabolic Health and DiseaseSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207