Diet composition and obesity among Canadian adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The contribution of specific nutrients to obesity has not been definitively established. The objective of this study was to determine if an association exists between obesity and the relative percentages of fats, carbohydrates, protein and fibre in the diets of Canadians. DATA AND METHODS: The data are from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey--Nutrition. The analysis pertains to 6454 respondents aged 18 or older who provided valid 24-hour dietary recall information and measured height and weight, and whose reported energy intake was considered plausible based on their predicted energy expenditure. Logistic regression models with obesity status as the main outcome were conducted, controlling for potential confounders. All analyses were based on weighted estimates. RESULTS: When the effect of the control variables was taken into account, total kilocalories consumed increased the odds of obesity in men, and fibre intake decreased the odds. Among women, only total kilocalories consumed was significantly associated with increased odds of obesity. INTERPRETATION: Higher consumption of kilocalories increased the odds of obesity, but the relative amounts of fats, carbohydrates and protein were generally not significant. The sole exception was an association between higher fibre intake and lower rates of obesity among men.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".