MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2152812915

Preventing and managing pediatric obesity. Recommendations for family physicians.

2006· article· en· W2152812915 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Plourde

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionObesityChildhood obesityComorbidityFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)MEDLINEPsychiatryOverweight
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on prevention and management of childhood obesity and to offer suggestions for family physicians. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Articles were obtained from a PubMed search. Most studies on pediatric obesity provide level II evidence. There are some level I studies on management. MAIN MESSAGE: Pediatric obesity is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Prevention should be initiated as early as pregnancy. Prevention and treatment approaches should include patient and family interventions focusing on nutrition, physical activity, reduced television viewing, and behaviour modification. The effectiveness of such interventions by primary care physicians has not been totally demonstrated, but incorporating them into clinical practice routines is likely to be beneficial. CONCLUSION: Family physicians have a role in promoting preventive measures and identifying and treating obesity-related comorbidity. Pediatric obesity is not an individual child's problem, but a problem that involves the whole family and the community. Recommending a healthy diet and increased physical activity and counseling families on behaviour change is the best approach to preventing and managing childhood obesity.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→