Population attributable risk from obesity to arthritis in the Canadian Population Health Longitudinal Survey 1994–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship, potential associations, and determine the population attributable risk percent (PAR%) between obesity and arthritis in Canadians aged 40 to 79 from 1994 to 2006. METHODS: Our study population were the 17 276 respondents in the Canadian National Population Longitudinal Health Survey data, from 1994/1995 to 2006/2007. RESULTS: Respondents who were overweight and obese increased over time, with arthritis increasing from 20% to 30% over the study period. Women reported a 10% higher prevalence of arthritis than men. Men aged 70-79 and women aged 60-69 were most likely to report arthritis. PAR% calculations indicated that 3.8% of arthritis in 1994 and 7.5% in 2006 in the overall population could be attributed to overweight, while the proportion of arthritis attributable to obesity increased from 7.0% in 1994 to 10.2% in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing overweight/obesity of the population was positively associated with arthritis in Canada for both sexes. In addition to the many other beneficial health effects, reducing levels of excess weight may result in either less arthritis or fewer manifestations of symptoms of arthritis or both.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".