MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150532926 · doi:10.1177/0009922808315214

Impact of Increasing Adiposity in Hyperlipidemic Children

2008· article· en· W2150532926 on OpenAlexaff
Saul Miller, Cedric Manlhiot, Nita Chahal, Geraldine Cullen-Dean, Louise Bannister, Brian W. McCrindle

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexHyperlipidemiaInternal medicineOverweightTriglycerideLipid profileCholesterolEndocrinologyObesityHigh-density lipoproteinDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite lifestyle management, children with high-risk hyperlipidemias may become overweight, and this may further adversely impact their lipid profile. Regression analysis was used to determine changes over time in adiposity and their association with lipid profiles and other risk factors for hyperlipidemic children followed in a lipid disorder clinic. 184 patients were included. Median age at presentation was 7 years (2-17 years), and median duration of follow-up was 9 years (5-20 years). Mean initial total cholesterol was 6.9+/-1.6 mmol/L, low-density lipoproteins were 5.2+/-1.7 mmol/L, high-density lipoproteins were 1.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/L, triglycerides were 1.1+/-0.8 mmol/L, and body mass index z score was +0.4+/-1.0. A significant increase in body mass index z score (+0.032/year, P< .001) was observed. There was an associated significant increase in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels and decrease in high-density lipoprotein levels over time. Worsening adiposity is prevalent in hyperlipidemic children and adversely affects their lipid profiles and cardiovascular risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical PediatricsSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207