MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1902843405 · doi:10.25336/p6dk8m

Is boys’ physical activity in childhood associated with being overweight in mid-adulthood? A longitudinal study spanning 35 years

2017· article· en· W1902843405 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lauren B. Sherar, Robert L. Mirwald, Marta Erlandson, Adam Baxter‐Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionUniversité de MontréalSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsOverweightAnthropometryLongitudinal studyObesityPhysical activityBody mass indexYoung adultMedicineDemographyEarly adulthoodEarly childhoodChildhood obesityGerontologyPsychologyInternal medicineDevelopmental psychologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of childhood physical activity (PA) on subsequent adult body mass. Using longitudinal data from the Saskatchewan Growth and Development Study (1964–73), PA, height, body mass and percent body fat were assessed on 207 males (age 7 years at study entry). Subjects were categorized into activity groups based on annual composite activity assessments. 58 participants returned during adulthood (between 39-41 years of age) when similar anthropometric measurements were taken. Childhood PA groupings were significantly related to adult BMI, but not body fat. The more active child had a greater BMI in adulthood (P<0.05). The results from this study indicate that the active child, in this sample, is not protected against overweight/obesity in adulthood.

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)0.001
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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207