Prevalence of overweight and obesity among children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there have been numerous studies examining the prevalence of overweight and obesity among children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities, they have not yet been integrated and synthesized through a systematic quantitative review process. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine: (i) the prevalence of overweight/obesity among children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities; (ii) the sources of heterogeneity in studies reporting the prevalence of overweight/obesity in this population; and (iii) the risk of overweight/obesity in this population compared with their typically developing peers. A systematic literature search was performed and 16 studies, published between 1985 and 2015, met the inclusion criteria. The resulting pooled prevalence estimates for overweight, overweight-obesity and obesity were respectively: (i) 15%, 30%, and 13%, in children; and (ii) 18%, 33%, and 15% in adolescents. Subgroup analyses showed significant variations in the pooled prevalence estimates as a function of geographical region, recruitment setting, additional diagnoses, and norms used to define overweight or obesity. The findings also showed adolescents with intellectual disabilities to be respectively 1.54 and 1.80 times more at risk of overweight-obesity and obesity than typically developing adolescents. Unfortunately, no such comparison is available for children. © 2016 World 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it