MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fat, Sugar or Both ? A Prospective Analysis of Dietary Patterns and Adiposity in Children

2015· article· en· W1527850987 on OpenAlexaff
Gina L. Ambrosini, DP Johns, Kate Northstone, Susan A. Jebb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome
KeywordsObesitySugarAdded sugarBody mass indexMedicineLongitudinal studyNutrient densityChildhood obesityNutrientFood scienceEnergy densityEndocrinologyOverweightBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The roles of dietary sugar and fat in childhood obesity are the subject of recent debate. We investigated dietary patterns (DP) characterized by these macronutrients and their longitudinal associations with adiposity in children. Participants were 6722 children in the UK Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. A 3-d food diary was completed at 7, 10 and 13 y of age. DP were identified according to % total energy intake (%E) from non-milk extrinsic sugars, %E from total fat, dietary energy density and fibre, using reduced rank regression. Fat mass was measured at 11, 13 and 15 y. Longitudinal models adjusted for dietary misreporting, physical activity and maternal factors. Two major DP were identified: DP1 was high in sugar, fat, energy density and low in fibre; DP2 was high in sugar but low in fat and energy density. A 1 SD increase in z-score for DP1 was associated with an average increase in fat mass index of 0.04 SD units (95%CI 0.01-0.07) and greater odds of excess adiposity (OR=12%, 95%CI 1-25%). DP2 was not significantly associated with adiposity. An energy-dense DP high in both fat and sugar is longitudinally associated with greater adiposity in childhood. This DP consists of low intakes of fruit, vegetables and wholegrains, and high intakes of sweets, cakes, sugary drinks, low-fibre cereals and breads. This provides food-based dietary guidance to prevent obesity in children that may be more meaningful to consumers than nutrient prescriptions. Funding: Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207