Body mass index and the risk of acute injury in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and acute injury in adolescents. METHODS: An analysis of cross-sectional data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) Cycle 3.1 collected by Statistics Canada in 2005 was conducted. The CCHS is a population-based survey that collects information pertaining to the Canadian population health status, health care use and health determinants. The CCHS Cycle 3.1 included 132,221 respondents, of whom 12,317 were 12 to 17 years of age. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of injury occurrence by BMI categories (obese, overweight and neither). RESULTS: The association between overweight and obese BMI levels and injury occurrence in the bivariate model was not significant after adjusting for sex, health status, activity levels and socioeconomic status (OR=1.10 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.24] for overweight and OR=1.12 [95% CI 0.92 to 1.37] for obesity). A subanalysis of those with an injury in the past 12 months found an elevated odds of experiencing multiple injuries in the overweight group, after adjusting for age, health status and physical activity level (OR=1.43 [95% CI 1.16 to 1.77]). CONCLUSION: An increased risk of acute injury in obese and overweight adolescents was not observed. However, the subgroup analysis suggested that multiple injuries are relatively frequent in the overweight BMI group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".