Association of eating while television viewing and overweight/obesity among children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the association between eating while television viewing (TVV) and overweight or obesity in children (<18 years). A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, PreQuest and Embase was conducted up to April 2017; pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. Of 4,357 articles identified, 20 observational studies met inclusion criteria (n = 84,825) and 8 of these 20 (n = 41,617) reported OR. Eating while TVV was positively associated with obesity-related anthropometric measurements in 15 studies (75%). The meta-analysis revealed that eating while TVV was positively associated with being overweight (OR = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.39). Subgroup analyses showed similar positive associations in both girls and boys, as well as in children who ate dinner while TVV. There was no evidence of publication bias. The present systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that eating while TVV could be a risk factor for being overweight or obese in childhood and 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".