Table 1.
Experiments examining body mass index and gray matter volume.
| # | Author Date | Sample | Body mass index m (sd) | Female | Age m (sd) | T/Z/ r | P values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bond 2014 (Bond et al., 2014) | 55 HW | 24.00 (3.90) | 24 | 22.15 (3.65) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 2 | Brooks 2013 (Brooks et al., 2013) | (1) 59 OB (2) 97 HW |
(1) 33.7 (0.4) (2) 22.1 (0.2) |
(1) 58 (2) 54 |
(1) 75 (NA) (2) 75 (NA) |
T | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 3 | Figley 2016 (Figley et al., 2016) | (1) 16 men (2) 16 women |
(1) 26.2 (4.4) (2) 23.5 (4.2) |
16 |
(1) 28.7 (9.7) (2) 30.9 (11.5) |
r |
p FWE < 0.05 |
| 4 | Hayakawa 2018 (Hayakawa et al., 2018) | 523 men | 24.7 (3.1) | 0 | 55.3 (9.7) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 5 | Hayakawa 2018 (Hayakawa et al., 2018) | 269 women | 22.0 (3.3) | 269 | 55.2 (9.9) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 6 | He 2015 (He et al. 2015) | 336 | 20.4 (2.2) | 195 | 20.4 (1.0) | r | p < .01 uncor |
| 7 | Honea 2016 (Honea et al., 2016) | 53/72 dieters a | 35.6 (3.6) | 34 | 40.1 (8.5) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 8 | Horstmann (Horstmann et al., 2011) | 61 HW women | 26.15 (6.64) | 61 | 25.11 (4.43) | Z, r | p < 0.0001 uncor |
| 9 | Horstmann 2011 (Horstmann et al., 2011) | 61 HW men | 27.24 (6.13) | 0 | 25.46 (4.25) | Z, r | p < 0.0002 uncor |
| 10 | Janowitz 2015 (Janowitz et al., 2015) | 758 SHIP-2 sample | 27.40 (4.50) | 408 | 49.80 (9.30) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 11 | Karlsson 2013 (Karlsson et al., 2013) | (1) 23 OB (2) 22 HW |
(1) 43.2 (3.7) (2) 24.0 (2.3) |
(1) 18 (2) 15 |
(1) 47.3 (8.9) (2) 46.5 (9.5) |
r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 12 | Kennedy (Kennedy et al., 2016) | 137 adolescents | 20.5b | 68 | 14.9 (3.1) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 13 | Kurth 2013 (Kurth et al., 2013) | 115 OW | 25.0 (4.1) | 61 | 45.2 (15.5) | r | p FDR < 0.05 |
| 14 | Masouleh 2016 (Masouleh et al., 2016) | 617 older adults | 27.5 (4.0) | 258 | 68.7 (4.6) | r | p FDR < 0.05 |
| 15 | Mathar 2016 (Mathar et al., 2016) | (1) 23 HW (2) 19 OB |
(1) 21.8 (1.3) (2) 33.6 (2.3) |
(1) 12 (2) 8 |
(1) 25.2 (3.0) (2) 27.0 (4.1) |
Z | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 16 | Mueller 2015 (Mueller et al., 2015) | 16 OB/OW | 33.6 (5.9) | 9 | 27.2 (6.7) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 17 | Nouwen 2017 (Nouwen et al., 2017) | (1) 20 OB (2) 19 HW |
30.3c | (1) 15 (2) 14 |
(1) 14.9 (2.0) (2) 16.4 (1.7) |
Z | p < .005 uncor |
| 18 | Opel 2015 (Opel et al., 2015) | 141 HW | 25.7 (4.7) | 78 | 37.6 (11.8) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 19 | Opel 2017 (Opel et al., 2017) BiDirect | 347 HW | 26.3 (4.1) | 155 | 51.6 (8.2) | T, r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 20 | Opel 2017 (Opel et al., 2017) MNC | 330 HW | 24.5 (3.9) | 172 | 39.2 (11.3) | T, r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 21 | Pannacciulli 2006 (Pannacciulli et al., 2006) | (1) 24 OB (2) 36 HW |
39.4 (4.7) 22.7 (2.2) |
24 | (1) 32.0 (8.0) (2) 33.0 (9.0) |
r | p < .01 uncor |
| 22 | Shott 2015 (Shott et al., 2015) | (1) 18 OB (2) 24 HW |
34.8 (4.4) 21.6 (1.3) |
42 | (1) 28.7 (8.30) (2) 27.4 (6.28) |
T,Z | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 23 | Smucny 2012 (Smucny et al., 2012) | (1) 28 OB-prone d (2) 25 OB-resistant |
26.2 (2.9) 21.0 (2.0) |
26 | (1) 30.3 (3.81) (2) 31.3 (3.45) |
T | p < 0.001 uncor |
| 24 | Taki 2008 (Taki et al., 2008) | 690 men | 23.4 (3.0) | 0 | 44.5 (16.1) | r | p < 0.001 uncor |
| 25 | Tuulari 2016 (Tuulari et al., 2016) | (1) 29 HW (2) 47 OB |
23.2 (2.8) 42.2 (4.0) |
65 | (1) 45.9 (11.8) (2) 44.9 (9.0) |
r | p < .05 uncor |
| 26 | Walther 2010 (Walther et al., 2010) | 95 OW | 28.3 (2.1) | 95 | 69.3 (9.3) | r | p FDR < 0.05 |
| 27 | Weise 2017 (Weise et al., 2017) | 875 HW | 26.6 (5.3) | 489 | 28.8 (3.7) | r | p FWE < 0.05 |
| 28 | Yao 2016 (Yao et al., 2016) | 109 HW | 27.6 (6.1) | 62 | 35.2 (11.2) | r | p < .001 uncor |
Note: # = experiment number; BMI = body mass index, NA = not available; OW = individuals in the BMI range for overweight (Centers of Disease Control, 2020); OB = individuals in the BMI range for obesity (Centers of Disease Control, 2020); HW = individuals in the healthy weight range (Centers of Disease Control, 2020),a Successful dieters; b Reported 59.36 (26.87) %ile which is a healthy BMI given age. Here we calculated the body mass index equivalent using US growth charts (Kuczmarski et al. December 4, 2000 (Revised). c Reported (1) 3.25 (0.78) %ile of 95th percentile and (2) 0.23 (0.96). Here we calculated the mean body mass index of both groups using UK growth charts (Cole et al., 1995) d ‘Obesity prone’ or ‘obesity resistant’ was defined by self-identification, BMI, and personal and family weight history.