Gender expression associated with BMI in a prospective cohort study of US adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between gender expression (GE) and BMI in adolescence. METHODS: Repeated measures of weight-related behaviors and BMI were collected from 1996 to 2011 via annual/biennial self-report surveys from youth aged 10 to 23 years (6,693 females, 2,978 males) in the longitudinal Growing Up Today Study. GE (very conforming [referent], mostly conforming, nonconforming) was assessed in 2010/11. Sex-stratified, multivariable linear models estimated GE group differences in BMI and the contribution of sexual orientation and weight-related exposures to group differences. Models for males included interaction terms for GE with age. RESULTS: In females, mostly conforming youth had 0.53 kg m(-2) and nonconforming had 1.23 kg m(-2) higher BMI; when adding adjustment for sexual orientation and weight-related exposures, GE group estimates were attenuated up to 8% and remained statistically significant. In males, mostly conforming youth had -0.67 kg m(-2) and nonconforming had -1.99 kg m(-2) lower BMI (age [in years]) interactions were between -0.09 and -0.14 kg m(-2) ; when adding adjustment for sexual orientation and weight-related exposures, GE group estimates were attenuated up to 11% and remained statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: GE is a strong independent predictor of BMI in adolescence. Obesity prevention and treatment interventions with youth must address ways that gender norms may reinforce or undermine healthful behaviors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".