Identifying risk profiles for childhood obesity using recursive partitioning based on individual, familial, and neighborhood environment factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies consider how risk factors within multiple levels of influence operate synergistically to determine childhood obesity. We used recursive partitioning analysis to identify unique combinations of individual, familial, and neighborhood factors that best predict obesity in children, and tested whether these predict 2-year changes in body mass index (BMI). METHODS: Data were collected in 2005-2008 and in 2008-2011 for 512 Quebec youth (8-10 years at baseline) with a history of parental obesity (QUALITY study). CDC age- and sex-specific BMI percentiles were computed and children were considered obese if their BMI was ≥95th percentile. Individual (physical activity and sugar-sweetened beverage intake), familial (household socioeconomic status and measures of parental obesity including both BMI and waist circumference), and neighborhood (disadvantage, prestige, and presence of parks, convenience stores, and fast food restaurants) factors were examined. Recursive partitioning, a method that generates a classification tree predicting obesity based on combined exposure to a series of variables, was used. Associations between resulting varying risk group membership and BMI percentile at baseline and 2-year follow up were examined using linear regression. RESULTS: Recursive partitioning yielded 7 subgroups with a prevalence of obesity equal to 8%, 11%, 26%, 28%, 41%, 60%, and 63%, respectively. The 2 highest risk subgroups comprised i) children not meeting physical activity guidelines, with at least one BMI-defined obese parent and 2 abdominally obese parents, living in disadvantaged neighborhoods without parks and, ii) children with these characteristics, except with access to ≥1 park and with access to ≥1 convenience store. Group membership was strongly associated with BMI at baseline, but did not systematically predict change in BMI. CONCLUSION: Findings support the notion that obesity is predicted by multiple factors in different settings and provide some indications of potentially obesogenic environments. Alternate group definitions as well as longer duration of follow up should be investigated to predict change in 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".