The relationship of the local food environment with obesity: A systematic review of methods, study quality, and results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between local food environments and obesity and assess the quality of studies reviewed. METHODS: Systematic keyword searches identified studies from US and Canada that assessed the relationship of obesity to local food environments. We applied a quality metric based on design, exposure and outcome measurement, and analysis. RESULTS: We identified 71 studies representing 65 cohorts. Overall, study quality was low; 60 studies were cross-sectional. Associations between food outlet availability and obesity were predominantly null. Among non-null associations, we saw a trend toward inverse associations between supermarket availability and obesity (22 negative, 4 positive, 67 null) and direct associations between fast food and obesity (29 positive, 6 negative, 71 null) in adults. We saw direct associations between fast food availability and obesity in lower income children (12 positive, 7 null). Indices including multiple food outlets were most consistently associated with obesity in adults (18 expected, 1 not expected, 17 null). Limiting to higher quality studies did not affect results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large number of studies, we found limited evidence for associations between local food environments and obesity. The predominantly null associations should be interpreted cautiously due to the low quality of available studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".