The adiposity of children is associated with their lifestyle behaviours: a cluster analysis of school‐aged children from 12 nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between children's adiposity and lifestyle behaviour patterns is an area of growing interest. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to identify clusters of children based on lifestyle behaviours and compare children's adiposity among clusters. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment were used. PARTICIPANTS: the participants were children (9-11 years) from 12 nations (n = 5710). MEASURES: 24-h accelerometry and self-reported diet and screen time were clustering input variables. Objectively measured adiposity indicators were waist-to-height ratio, percent body fat and body mass index z-scores. ANALYSIS: sex-stratified analyses were performed on the global sample and repeated on a site-wise basis. Cluster analysis (using isometric log ratios for compositional data) was used to identify common lifestyle behaviour patterns. Site representation and adiposity were compared across clusters using linear models. RESULTS: Four clusters emerged: (1) Junk Food Screenies, (2) Actives, (3) Sitters and (4) All-Rounders. Countries were represented differently among clusters. Chinese children were over-represented in Sitters and Colombian children in Actives. Adiposity varied across clusters, being highest in Sitters and lowest in Actives. CONCLUSIONS: Children from different sites clustered into groups of similar lifestyle behaviours. Cluster membership was linked with differing adiposity. Findings support the implementation of activity interventions in all countries, targeting both physical activity and sedentary time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".