Canadian Pediatric Weight Management Registry (CANPWR): baseline descriptive statistics and comparison to Canadian norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A pilot study was conducted to assess the feasibility of establishing a multi-site CANadian Pediatric Weight management Registry (CANPWR) containing individual, family and weight management program information. METHODS: Standardized baseline data were collected to characterize CANPWR participants (n = 310) in comparison to a sample of age-matched Canadian children measured in the nationally representative Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS; n = 3,788). This study compared demographic, anthropometric, cardiometabolic and lifestyle characteristics of participants (aged 6-17 years) in the CANPWR pilot study with those from the CHMS. RESULTS: Compared to CHMS respondents, CANPWR participants had higher BMI z-score, waist circumference, blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and fasting glucose, and lower HDL cholesterol. They reported lower sugared drink consumption, were more likely to be non-white and had parents with lower education. CONCLUSIONS: The CANPWR cohort represents a group that has biological and behavioral profiles that place them at increased health risk and who differ significantly from typical Canadians of the same age.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".