MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2253762657 · doi:10.1155/2015/121806

Trajectories of Body Mass Index from Young Adulthood to Middle Age among Canadian Men and Women

2015· article· en· W2253762657 on OpenAlexaffabout
Meng Wang, Yanqing Yi, Barbara Roebothan, Jennifer Colbourne, Victor Maddalena, Peter Wang, Guang Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Epidemiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightBody mass indexDemographyYoung adultGerontologyObesityPopulationNational Longitudinal SurveysLongitudinal studyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge regarding the heterogeneity of BMI trajectories is limited for the Canadian population. Using latent class growth modelling, four distinct BMI trajectories of individuals from young adulthood to middle age were identified for both women and men from the longitudinal data of the National Population Health Survey. The associations between BMI trajectories and the individuals’ sociodemographic characteristics and behavioural factors were also examined. Aboriginal women were found more likely to be in the long-term overweight or obese groups. It reveals that increased years of smoking, drinking, and being physically active were associated with lowering the BMI trajectory in all groups for both women and men, with some exceptions in the long-term normal weight group for men. Increased years of rural living, being employed, and living with low income were associated with raising the BMI trajectory in all groups for women and in some groups for men. Food insecurity was associated with raising the BMI trajectory in each group for both women and 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 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)0.002
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Epidemiology→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→