MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999722360 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-16

Effects of neighbourhood income on reported body mass index: an eight year longitudinal study of Canadian children

2008· article· en· W1999722360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Oliver, Michael V. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeighbourhood (mathematics)PercentileBody mass indexDemographyMedicineLongitudinal studyBiostatisticsDisadvantageSocioeconomic statusEarly childhoodEpidemiologyGerontologyEnvironmental healthPopulationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the effects of neighbourhood income on children's Body Mass Index (BMI) from childhood (ages 2-3) to early adolescence (ages 10-11) using longitudinal data. METHODS: Five cycles of data from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth are analyzed for a sub-sample of children (n = 2152) aged 2-3 at baseline (1994) and assessed at two year intervals to 2002. Body mass index percentiles are based on height/weight estimates reported by proxy respondents (child's person most knowledgeable). Family and neighbourhood factors were assessed at baseline. The prevalence of neighbourhood low income was obtained from the 1996 Census and divided into three categories from 'most poor' to 'least poor'. Longitudinal modelling techniques were applied to the data. RESULTS: After controlling for individual/family factors (age, sex, income, education, family structure) living in the 'most poor' neighbourhood was associated with increasing BMI percentile (1.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.75) over time compared to a 'middle' income neighbourhood. Living in an urban (vs. rural) neighbourhood was associated with a decreased BMI percentile (-3.57, 95% CI -6.38 to -0.76) across all time periods. CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that effects of neighbourhood disadvantage on children's BMI occur between childhood and early adolescence and suggest that policies should target the conditions of childhood, including the neighbourhood environment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations76
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207