Why the study?
Are functional brain networks associated with eating behaviors and BMI in individuals with non-healthy weight compared to those with healthy weight?
Are functional brain networks associated with eating behaviors and BMI in individuals with non-healthy weight compared to those with healthy weight?
Obesity is associated with differences in frontoparietal and cerebellum functional brain networks, which correlate with body mass index and disinhibited eating behaviors.
Network differences associate with BMI and disinhibition in non-HW; hypothesis-generating, should not yet change practice.
Obesity causes critical health problems including diabetes and hypertension that affect billions of people worldwide. Obesity and eating behaviors are believed to be closely linked but their relationship through brain networks has not been fully explored. We identified functional brain networks associated with obesity and examined how the networks were related to eating behaviors. Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were obtained for 82 participants. Data were from an equal number of people of healthy weight (HW) and non-healthy weight (non-HW). Connectivity matrices were computed with spatial maps derived using a group independent component analysis approach. Brain networks and associated connectivity parameters with significant group-wise differences were identified and correlated with scores on a three-factor eating questionnaire (TFEQ) describing restraint, disinhibition, and hunger eating behaviors. Frontoparietal and cerebellum networks showed group-wise differences between HW and non-HW groups. Frontoparietal network showed a high correlation with TFEQ disinhibition scores. Both frontoparietal and cerebellum networks showed a high correlation with body mass index (BMI) scores. Brain networks with significant group-wise differences between HW and non-HW groups were identified. Parts of the identified networks showed a high correlation with eating behavior scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: