Back

Altered Brain Network Topology during Successful Response Inhibition in Children with Binge Eating

Martin, E.; Schulz, K. P.; Hildebrandt, T.; Sysko, R.; Berner, L. A.; Li, X.

2025-12-11 neuroscience
10.64898/2025.12.09.693025 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AimAlthough a risk factor for the later development of eating disorders, few studies examine the neural underpinnings of binge eating (BE) in children. Preliminary evidence suggests a role of the corticostriatal system; the purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of the inhibitory control brain network for risk of BE in children. MethodsData from 65 children with BE (57% girls) and 84 matched controls (52% girls) from the 4.0 baseline release of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study were included. Stop Signal Task-based fMRI data were analyzed using graph theoretic techniques. Global and nodal network properties (e.g. efficiency, betweenness-centrality) were compared for between-group differences and sex-by-group interactions. ResultsDespite comparable behavioral performance, children with BE showed significantly increased nodal efficiency of the right postcentral gyrus and left middle frontal gyrus (MFG), and increased connectedness of the right postcentral gyrus compared to control children. Children with BE showed distinct network hubs including the right MFG and left insula, while controls had distinct hubs in the right orbitofrontal and left fusiform gyri. Group-specific sex differences were found in the functioning of insular and frontal cortices. ConclusionIncreased efficiency and connectedness in frontal and parietal nodes of the inhibitory control network functioning in children with BE may represent a vulnerability for overeating. Distinct sex differences in functioning in children with BE compared to control children may reflect specific vulnerabilities to BE in the inhibitory control system in boys and girls that may contribute to sex differences in prevalence.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.