A Comparison Study of Obesity among Able-Bodied Children and Adolescents Compared to Their Peers with Sensory Disabilities in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study assessed the prevalence of obesity among able-bodied children and adolescents compared to their peers with sensory disabilities. It also assessed whether there were differences between males and females in obesity. Methods: 724 able-bodied male students (12.0 ± 2.5 years; 147 ± 15 cm; 42.5 ± 15.0 kg), 241 able-bodied female students (10.8 ± 2.3 years; 141 ± 15 cm; 36.3 ± 12.9 kg), 113 visually-impaired male students (11.6 ± 3.6 years; 142 ± 19 cm; 38.7 ± 16.1 kg), 101visually-impaired female students (12.9 ± 3.7 years; 145 ± 16 cm; 43.2 ± 15.1 kg), 192 hearing-impaired male students (13.2 ± 2.6 years; 152 ± 15 cm; 45.0 ± 15.0 kg) and 151 hearing-impaired female students (12.9 ± 2.8 years; 150 ± 13 cm; 46.3 ± 13.8 kg) volunteered for the study. BMI was calculated for each student. Results: BMI values were significantly higher for hearing-impaired (19.6 ± 3.8kg.m2) students compared to their able-bodied peers (18.9 ± 3.9kg.m2). 5%, 2.9% and 6.5% of able-bodied, hearing-impaired and visually-impaired were obese, respectively. 13%, 13.7% and 12.2% of able-bodied, hearing-impaired and visually-impaired were thinness, respectively. Conclusion: The prevalence of obesity among able-bodied children and adolescents is low compared to the literature and previous studies. That may be due to the fact that these children studying at public schools. Studying at public school may give indicator that the families of these children having low and moderate income which leads to less obesity and more thinness among these children. Low incidence of obesity and higher incidence of thinness for hearing-impaired and visually-impaired children may be attributed to the fact that most of these children and adolescents studying at residential schools which means that their dietary and food intake is monitored by their schools.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".