Obesity prevalence estimates in a Canadian regional population of preschool children using variant growth references
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity is a public health problem in Canada. Accurate measurement of a health problem is crucial in defining its burden. The objective of this study is to compare the prevalence estimates of overweight and obesity in preschool children using three growth references. METHODS: Weights and heights were measured on 1026 preschool children born in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada, and body mass index calculated. The prevalence of overweight and obesity was determined and statistical comparisons conducted among the three growth references; the Centres for Disease Control (CDC), the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). RESULTS: CDC and IOTF produced similar estimates of the prevalence of overweight, 19.1% versus 18.2% while the WHO reported a higher prevalence 26.7% (p < .001). The CDC classified twice as many children as obese compared to the IOTF 16.6% versus 8.3% (p < .001) and a third more than the WHO 16.6% versus 11.3% (p < .01). There was variable level of agreement between methods. CONCLUSIONS: The CDC reported a much higher prevalence of obesity compared to the other references. The prevalence of childhood obesity is dependent on the growth reference used.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".