MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907803392 · doi:10.1093/jn/nxy209

The Cardiometabolic Risk Profile of Underreporters of Energy Intake Differs from That of Adequate Reporters among Children at Risk of Obesity

2018· article· en· W2907803392 on OpenAlexafffund
Karine Suissa, Andrea Benedetti, Mélanie Henderson, Katherine Gray‐Donald, Gilles Paradis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nutrition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineWaistBody mass indexCohortObesityDemographyLogistic regressionCutoffEpidemiologyInternal medicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Misreporting of energy intake (EI) in nutritional epidemiology is a concern because of information bias, and tends to occur differentially in obese compared with nonobese subjects. Objective: We examined characteristics of misreporters within a cohort of children with a parental history of obesity and the bias introduced by underreporting. Methods: The QUebec Adipose and Lifestyle InvesTigation in Youth (QUALITY) cohort included 630 Caucasian children aged 8-10 y at recruitment with ≥1 obese parent [body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) >30 or waist circumference >102 cm (men), >88 cm (women)] and free of diabetes or severe illness. Children on antihypertensive medications or following a restricted diet were excluded. Child and parent characteristics were measured directly or by questionnaire. Three 24-h dietary recalls were administered by phone by a dietitian. Goldberg's cutoff method identified underreporters (URs). Logistic regression identified correlates of URs. We compared coefficients from linear regressions of BMI after 2 y on total EI at baseline 1) in all participants; 2) in adequate reporters (ARs) (excluding URs); 3) in all participants statistically adjusted for underreporting; 4) excluding URs using individual physical activity level (PAL)-specific cutoffs; and 5) in all participants statistically adjusted for underreporting using PAL-specific cutoffs. Results: We identified 175 URs based on a calculated cutoff of 1.11. URs were older, had a higher BMI z score, and had poorer cardiometabolic health indicators. Parents of URs had a lower family income and higher BMI. Child BMI z score (OR: 3.07; 95% CI: 2.38, 3.97) and age (OR: 1.46/y; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.87/y) were the strongest correlates of underreporting. The association between BMI and total EI was null in all participants but became significantly positive after excluding URs (ß = 0.62/1000 kcal; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.92/1000 kcal) and after adjustment for URs (ß = 0.85/1000 kcal; 95% CI: 0.55, 1.06/1000 kcal). Conclusions: URs in 8- to 10-y-old children differed from ARs. Underreporting biases measurement of nutritional exposures and the assessment of exposure-outcome relations. Identifying URs and using an appropriate correction method is essential.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NutritionSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207