MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2793922757

The PREVIEW-Population studies: design and methods

2013· other· en· W2793922757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edith J. M. Feskens, Diewertje Sluik, Mikael Fogelholm, Jennie Brand‐Miller, Armand Tremblay, Anne Raben

Bibliographic record

VenueSocio-Environmental Systems Modeling · 2013
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationBiologyMedicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall objective of PREVIEW population studies is to substantiate the findings in the intervention study with data from five longitudinal population studies from Europe, New Zealand and Canada, covering the entire lifespan. It will be evaluated whether protein intake, glycaemic index (GI), and physical activity, are predictive of diabetes and its cardiovascular consequences. This will add insight into the natural history of diabetes, by considering specific dietary and exercise factors. The following epidemiological studies will be analysed: 1. The Netherlands: LifeLines (2006-ongoing), a three-generation population-based study in 165,000 people 4-90+y and NQplus (2011-ongoing), a survey in n=1,750 people 20-70y, repeated 3 times. 2. Finland: Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study (1980-2012), a survey in n=3,596 people 3-18y at baseline, repeated 8 times. 3. New Zealand: NZ Adult Nutrition Survey (2008/09), a cross-sectional survey in n=4,721 people> 15y. 4. Canada: Quebec Family Study (1978-2002), a 3-phase longitudinal study from ~500 families including ~200 families with one obese member. A common database of these five population studies will be generated. Main exposure variables will be dietary components and physical activity. The outcome will be diabetes prevalence or incidence, and blood glucose parameters. Data-analysis will be conducted with meta-analytical techniques, using a random-effects model to consider heterogeneity among cohorts. Population attributable risks will give an estimate on how much of diabetes risk could theoretically be prevented by modifying these factors. Additionally, given that GI, one of the key exposures, is not routinely available in all food tables, a dedicated questionnaire focusing on assessing GI will be developed. It will be applied to the NQPlus cohort to gain insight into the quality of the GI results. The research described here receives funding from the EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 312057.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.008

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocio-Environmental Systems Modeling→Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→