Are the children and adolescents with congenital heart disease living in Southwestern Ontario really overweight and obese?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of overweight and obesity in children with congenital heart disease and compare them with age-matched healthy children in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We compared the Center of Disease Control weight and body mass index z-scores of 1080 children, aged 2 to 18 years, who presented to our paediatric cardiology outpatient clinic from 2008 to 2010 for congenital heart disease with 1083 healthy controls. RESULTS: In all, 18.2% of the children with congenital heart disease and 20.8% of healthy children were identified to be either overweight or obese. Overall, the weight category distribution had been similar between the congenital heart disease and healthy control groups, as well as between the congenital heart disease subgroups. There was no difference in normal weight and overweight/obese categories between children with congenital heart disease and healthy children. The underweight category, however, showed a significantly higher prevalence in congenital heart disease compared with healthy children (6.8 and 4.5%, respectively, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of overweight/obesity did not differ in children with congenital heart disease compared with age-matched healthy children; however, it is still high (18.2%). Obesity may represent an additional risk factor for the long-term cardiovascular health of congenital heart disease patients aside from the underlying heart defect.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".