Obesity prevention programs for children and youth: why are their results so modest?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect upon the mixed/modest results of the primary studies related to the effectiveness of physical activity enhancement and improving nutritional intake in obesity prevention programs for children and youth. The results of a recent review of this topic that included 57 randomized controlled trials provide the basis for this discussion. Only four primary studies reported both statistically and clinically significant outcome differences between intervention and comparison groups. Although there are some similarities, there are differences among the four studies. These differences relate to program duration, frequency and intensity, targeted age of participants and level of involvement of students, the school as a community/institution and parents. Frequent methodological limitations of the studies included inadequate sample selection, lack of masking of outcome assessors, inappropriate data analysis and lack of important sub-analyses. Program design and implementation issues included lack of monitoring of program integrity and 'dose' received by participants. Theoretical basis for interventions were rarely stated and never used to explain the results. The effectiveness of parental involvement is unclear. The question of statistical versus clinical significance needs to be addressed by clinical experts. Based on this reflection, several potential future directions are outlined.
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 | 0.024 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".