ReviewCurrent obesity reports2026
State of the Science on Ultra-processed Foods and the Ultra-processed Food Addiction Construct.
Review in Current obesity reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWe synthesize recent developments across two linked literatures, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the construct of UPF addiction, engaging contested questions of health harm, classification, assessment, and recognition. RECENT
findingsAdvances include: 1) feeding trials and diet-quality-adjusted cohorts indicating harm from processing itself; 2) analyses linking critiques of UPF classification predominantly to industry-affiliated authors; 3) findings consistent with the addictive-substance hypothesis: GLP-1 agonists reduce UPF intake and addictive-substance use, and analyses identify UPF attributes driving addictive-like eating; 4) the first clinician-administered UPF addiction interview extends assessment beyond self-report; and 5) Delphi consensus and regulatory and legislative attention signaling recognition of UPF addiction. Evidence increasingly supports treating UPFs and UPF addiction as one problem, the substance and the disorder, reshaping research and policy priorities. The evidence base for recognition rivals that of some recognized disorders, though its sufficiency remains debated. Gaps include targeted interventions and clinician-administered assessment data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42726423What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.