MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808299643 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy064

Re: Pound CM, Blair B. Energy and sports drinks in children and adolescents. Paediatr Child Health. 2017;22(7):406–10

2018· article· en· W2808299643 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Wong, Ashna Bowry, Rosemary Moodie

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPound (networking)Child healthMedicinePsychologyAdvertisingFamily medicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pound et al. (1) should be commended for their excellent position statement on ‘Energy and sports drink in children and adolescents’. Caffeine Energy Drinks (CEDs) are a relatively new class of beverage—a legal stimulant that can increase alertness, attention, energy, as well as increase blood pressure, heart rate and breathing (2,3). The authors are clear to address the potential health risks of CEDs. However, they do not appear to emphasize the emerging public health hazard of increasing consumption in Canada and globally (4–6)—meanwhile community concern grows about the sale of CEDs (7). More importantly, youth and adolescents are a particularly vulnerable population because of high caffeine levels, added sugars and mixing with alcohol, as well as youth-orientated marketing (8). Further, later adult risk of habitual intake increases (9). Since 2012, Health Canada regulates the conditions under which CEDs may be sold and marketed using a Temporary Market Authorization process. Enforcement is complaint-driven by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (10). Among the Health Canada provisions are that CEDs have a caffeine concentration between 200 to 400 ppm (mg/L); and that CED product labels must contain CED-specific messages, such as ‘Not recommended for children’, ‘Do not mix with alcohol’ and ‘Not recommended for individuals sensitive to caffeine’. However, conditions most relevant to children are prohibition of marketing CEDs to children (12 years old and under), prohibition against providing CED samples to children and prohibition against presenting CEDs for hydration and/or electrolyte replacement before, during or after physical activity. What can we do? We can take an advocacy role through environmental changes and food regulation by broadening legislation to include individuals under the age of majority and supporting compliance regarding the marketing and distribution of CEDs. Certainly, we can join wellness committees that consider supportive policies. For example, healthy vending machines, sponsorship and restriction of sale of CEDs in locally-owned and operated places or promotion of education and awareness-raising. When it comes to the impact on our youth and adolescents’ health, there is no excuse for inaction. Paediatricians are well-positioned to play an integral role in health promotion. And an even louder voice in advocacy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0850.037

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207