The Association Between Affect and Adiposity in Childhood and Adolescence: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between adiposity and psychological health is complex, with much of the current research focused on adult or adolescent psychopathology. Affect, a facet of psychological well-being observable from infancy, appears to influence energy balance behaviors, but relationships with adiposity are not fully understood. This review examined the association between affect and adiposity across childhood and adolescence to further understand the nature of these relationships. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched in February 2024. Studies that reported an association between measures of adiposity and affect were included and synthesized narratively. Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-seven studies were retrieved from the search. Studies overwhelmingly focused on negative affect (n = 75) rather than positive affect (n = 14) or both (n = 21). Thirty-three studies focused on adiposity and emotional functioning, and 24 on emotional regulation. Negative affect was more consistently associated with adiposity in adolescence. There was little evidence of bidirectionality, whereby higher adiposity generally preceded negative affect. Positive affect was also related to adiposity, although these relationships were mixed, with prospective associations found with higher and lower adiposity across development. Mechanisms of associations were infrequently examined but varied when reported. CONCLUSIONS: Positive and negative affect both appear to be associated with adiposity, and these relationships may be dynamic across development. Longitudinal research to elucidate these associations across development is necessary to confirm whether these trends are a true developmental phenomenon or a function of sample differences in baseline affect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".