Rural Canadian adolescents are more likely to be obese compared with urban adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined variations in overweight and obesity by geographic location in youth. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between urban/rural geographic status and being overweight or obese among Canadian adolescents. METHODS: The study involved an analysis of a representative sample of 4851 Canadian adolescents in grades 6 to 10 from the 2001-02 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Survey. Self-reports of participants' demographics, physical activity, screen time, diet, and body mass index (BMI) were assessed. Adiposity status was determined using the international BMI thresholds for children and youth. Urban/rural status was coded on a five-point scale based on the geographic location of the participants' schools. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to adjust for clustering was used to examine the association between urban/rural status and overweight/obesity. RESULTS: The population was 53.3% female with a mean age of 13.9 years (standard deviation, SD=1.5). Approximately 22.2% were living in rural areas while 14.4% were living in large metropolitan (metro) areas. After adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and Region of Canada, there was a trend for increasing overweight (p=0.001) and obesity (p=0.03) among adolescents as the level of "rurality" increased (relative odds for most urban to most rural regions for overweight or obese: 1.00, 0.98, 1.18, 1.57, 1.36; obesity: 1.00, 1.06, 1.39, 1.58, 1.56). Conclusion. This study provides new information about patterns of overweight/obesity among Canadian adolescents by urban-rural geographic status. These findings suggest that obesity prevention interventions should be particularly aggressive in rural areas.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".