Prevalence of obesity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An increasing number of clinical and epidemiological studies suggest a possible association between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and obesity/overweight. However, overall evidence is mixed. Given the public health relevance of ADHD and obesity/overweight, understanding whether and to what extent they are associated is paramount to plan intervention and prevention strategies. We describe the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the prevalence of obesity/overweight in individuals with ADHD versus those without ADHD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include studies of any design (except case reports or case series) comparing the prevalence of obesity and/or overweight in children or adults with and without ADHD (or hyperkinetic disorder). We will search an extensive number of databases including PubMed, Ovid databases, Web of Knowledge and Thomson-Reuters databases, ERIC and CINAHL. No restrictions of language will be applied. We will also contact experts in the field for possible unpublished or in press data. Primary and additional outcomes will be the prevalence of obesity and overweight, respectively. We will combine ORs using random-effects models in STATA V.12.0. The quality of the study will be assessed primarily using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Subgroup meta-analyses will be conducted according to participants' age (children vs adults) and study setting (clinical vs general population). We will explore the feasibility of conducting meta-regression analyses to assess the moderating effect of age, gender, socioeconomic status, study setting, geographic location of the study (low-income, middle-income countries vs high-income countries), definition of obesity, method to assess ADHD, psychiatric comorbidities and medication status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are foreseen. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences of psychiatry, psychology, obesity and paediatrics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42013006410).
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 | 0.054 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.005 |
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".