MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889417668 · doi:10.1111/obr.12721

Defining metabolically healthy obesity in children: a scoping review

2018· review· en· W2889417668 on OpenAlexafffund
Samah Damanhoury, Amanda S. Newton, Marghalara Rashid, Lisa Hartling, Jillian L.S. Byrne, Geoff D.C. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineOverweightPercentileObservational studyObesityChildhood obesityDelphi methodPediatricsInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a scoping review to identify definitions of metabolically healthy obesity (MHO), describe gaps in the literature, and establish a universal definition of MHO in children. We searched electronic databases from January 1980 to June 2017 and grey literature. Experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational studies were eligible for inclusion if they (i) included a definition of MHO that identified risk factors, cut-off values, and the number of criteria used to define MHO, and (ii) classified 2-18 year olds as overweight or obese. Two reviewers independently screened 1,711 papers for relevance and quality; we extracted data from 39 individual reports that met inclusion criteria. Most (31/39; 79%) definitions of MHO included an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors. Heterogeneity across MHO definitions, obesity criteria, and sample sizes/characteristics resulted in variable prevalence estimates (3-80%). Finally, we convened an international panel of 46 experts to complete a 4-round Delphi process to generate a consensus-based definition of MHO. Based on consensus (≥ 80% agreement), our definition of MHO included: high density lipoprotein-cholesterol > 40 mg/dl (or > 1.03 mmol/l), triglycerides ≤ 150 mg/dl (or ≤ 1.7 mmol/l), systolic and diastolic blood pressure ≤ 90th percentile, and a measure of glycemia. This definition of MHO holds potential universal value to enable comparisons between studies and inform clinical decision-making for children with obesity.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0280.025
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations132
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207