MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2664691634 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v6n4p39

Use of Quantile Regression in Determining Factors Associated with BMI Among Vulnerable Adolescents in Rivers State, Nigeria

2017· article· en· W2664691634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oyindamola B. Yusuf, Ayo Stephen Adebowale, Elijah A. Bamgboye, Temitayo Odusote, Iyabode Olusanmi, O. A. Ladipo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderweightQuantile regressionBody mass indexOverweightLivelihoodMedicineDemographyRegression analysisObesityEnvironmental healthIndex (typography)GerontologyGeographyStatisticsMathematicsAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body Mass Index has been investigated using the traditional regression methods which may not provide a complete picture of the effects of the independent variables when the outcome is continuous and skewed. Information on the nutritional status of vulnerable adolescents in Nigeria is scanty thereby hindering appropriate intervention by policy decision-makers. We investigated the nutritional status of vulnerable adolescents by examining their body mass index (BMI). A cross-sectional survey of vulnerable adolescents, aged 10-17 years was conducted in three local government areas in Rivers state, Nigeria. A structured questionnaire was used to gather information on the economic status, means of livelihood and accessibility to education, nutrition and health of the adolescents. Quantile regression models were fitted to the data. About 39% of the 494 adolescents were underweight, 49.8% had normal weight, 5.5% were overweight while 6.1% were obese. Age was a significant predictor of BMI for the males at the 50th quantile. Adolescent males that experienced food insecurity showed lower BMI compared to those who were food secured. Age, sex, food insecurity and household economy were determinants of BMI among vulnerable adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207