Relation between local food environments and obesity among adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outside of the United States, evidence for associations between exposure to fast-food establishments and risk for obesity among adults is limited and equivocal. The purposes of this study were to investigate whether the relative availability of different types of food retailers around people's homes was associated with obesity among adults in Edmonton, Canada, and if this association varied as a function of distance between food locations and people's homes. METHODS: Data from a population health survey of 2900 adults (18 years or older) conducted in 2002 was linked with geographic measures of access to food retailers. Based upon a ratio of the number of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to supermarkets and specialty food stores, a Retail Food Environment Index (RFEI) was calculated for 800 m and 1600 m buffers around people's homes. In a series of logistic regressions, associations between the RFEI and the level of obesity among adults were examined. RESULTS: The median RFEI for adults in Edmonton was 4.00 within an 800 m buffer around their residence and 6.46 within a 1600 m buffer around their residence. Approximately 14% of the respondents were classified as being obese. The odds of a resident being obese were significantly lower (OR = 0.75, 95%CI 0.59 - 0.95) if they lived in an area with the lowest RFEI (below 3.0) in comparison to the highest RFEI (5.0 and above). These associations existed regardless of the covariates included in the model. No significant associations were observed between RFEI within a 1600 m buffer of the home and obesity. CONCLUSION: The lower the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and produce vendors near people's homes, the lower the odds of being obese. Thus the proximity of the obesogenic environment to individuals appears to be an important factor in their risk for obesity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".