Risk Factors for Adult Overweight and Obesity: The Importance of Looking Beyond the ‘Big Two’
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare two traditional (high dietary lipid intake and non-participation in high-intensity physical exercise, namely the 'Big Two' factors) versus three nontraditional (short sleep duration, high disinhibition eating behavior, and low dietary calcium intake) risk factors as predictors of excess body weight and overweight/obesity development. METHOD: Adult participants aged 18-64 years of the Quebec Family Study were selected for cross-sectional (n = 537) and longitudinal (n = 283; 6-year follow-up period) analyses. The main outcome measure was overweight/obesity, defined as a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2). RESULTS: We observed that both the prevalence and incidence of overweight/obesity was best predicted by a combination of risk factors. However, short sleep duration, high disinhibition eating behavior and low dietary calcium intake seemed to contribute more to the risk of overweight and obesity than high dietary lipid intake and non-participation in high-intensity physical exercise. Globally, the risk of being overweight or obese was two-fold higher for individuals having the three nontraditional risk factors combined (OR 6.05; 95% CI 4.26-7.88) compared to those reporting a high percentage of lipids in their diet together with no vigorous physical activity in their daily schedule (OR 2.95; 95% CI 2.18-3.73). Furthermore, the risk of overweight/obesity was also higher for the combination of any two of the nontraditional risk factors than for the combination of the 'Big Two' factors. CONCLUSION: These results are concordant with previous reports showing that obesity is a multifactorial condition, and emphasize the importance of looking beyond reported measures of the 'Big Two' factors.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it