MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2488263471 · doi:10.4137/geg.s38289

Assessing the Causality Factors in the Association between (Abdominal) Obesity and Physical Activity among the Newfoundland Population–-A Mendelian Randomization Analysis

2016· article· en· W2488263471 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frank Barning, Taraneh Abarin

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics & Epigenetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMendelian randomizationConfoundingObesityBody mass indexObservational studyMedicineCausality (physics)Abdominal obesityPopulationDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineWaistBiologyGeneticsGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 1,263 adults from Newfoundland and Labrador were studied in the research. Body mass index (BMI) and percent trunk fat (PTF) were analyzed as biomarkers for obesity. The Mendelian randomization (MR) approach with two single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the fat-mass and obesity (FTO) gene as instruments was employed to assess the causal effect. In both genders, increasing physical activity significantly reduced BMI and PTF when adjusted for age and the FTO gene. The effect of physical activity was stronger on PTF than BMI. Direct observational analyses showed significant increase in BMI/PTF when physical activity decreased. A similar association in MR analyses was not significant. The association between physical activity and BMI/PTF could be due to reversed causality or common confounding factors. Our study provides insights into the causal contributions of obesity to physical activity in adults. Health intervention strategies to increase physical activity among adults should include some other plans such as improving diet for reducing 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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics & Epigenetics→Same topicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→