MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787070480 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019862

Income and obesity: what is the direction of the relationship? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2787070480 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVolkswagen Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPublication biasCausationCausality (physics)PsycINFOObesitySystematic reviewMEDLINEDemographyGerontologyPathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: It was repeatedly shown that lower income is associated with higher risks for subsequent obesity. However, the perspective of a potential reverse causality is often neglected, in which obesity is considered a cause for lower income, when obese people drift into lower-income jobs due to labour-market discrimination and public stigmatisation. This review was performed to explore the direction of the relation between income and obesity by specifically assessing the importance of social causation and reverse causality. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in January 2017. The databases Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, International Bibliography of Social Sciences and Sociological Index were screened to identify prospective cohort studies with quantitative data on the relation between income and obesity. Meta-analytic methods were applied using random-effect models, and the quality of studies assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: In total, 21 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. All included studies originated from either the USA (n=16), the UK (n=3) or Canada (n=2). From these, 14 studies on causation and 7 studies on reverse causality were found. Meta-analyses revealed that lower income is associated with subsequent obesity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.47; risk ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.13), though the statistical significance vanished once adjusted for publication bias. Studies on reverse causality indicated a more consistent relation between obesity and subsequent income, even after taking publication bias into account (standardised mean difference -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.01). Sensitivity analyses implied that the association is influenced by obesity measurement, gender, length of observation and study quality. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that there is more consistent evidence for reverse causality. Therefore, there is a need to examine reverse causality processes in more detail to understand the relation between income and obesity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 42016041296.

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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.532
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.075 · 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