MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036901467 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.10211

Growth status and obesity of Hopi children

2003· article· en· W2036901467 on OpenAlexaff
Joey C. Eisenmann, David A. Arnall, Verdell Kanuho, Heather McArel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsHopiObesityEnvironmental healthMedicineGeographyInternal medicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the growth status and prevalence of underweight, overweight, and obesity in Hopi children. Subjects were 263 (117 males, 146 females) Hopi children 6-12 years of age. Stature and mass were measured and the body mass index (BMI) was calculated. Body size variables were plotted relative to age- and sex-specific reference data and the prevalence rates for underweight, overweight, and obesity were estimated using the BMI as the criterion. Age-specific sex differences were compared using independent samples t-tests. In both sexes, mean age-specific stature appeared to be relatively stable around the 50th percentile of reference values. Mean age-specific mass appeared to be relatively stable between the 50th and 90th percentiles of the reference values, while the mean BMI tended to fluctuate about the 85th percentile. Approximately 23% of Hopi children were classified as overweight and an additional 24% were classified as obese. Only two subjects were categorized as underweight. The results are consistent with other reports that childhood obesity is a serious public health concern among Native Americans. Further study is warranted to examine the causes of the high prevalence rates of pediatric obesity among Native Americans and the effectiveness of prevention and intervention programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207