Weight status in individuals with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight status and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are rising public health concerns. An increasing number of reports indicate that individuals with ASD may have unhealthy weight status, but the evidence is mixed. To understand the weight status in individuals with ASD and provide strategies for prevention and intervention, we describe the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the prevalence of obesity, overweight, and underweight in ASD. METHODS: A broad range of key bibliographic databases including MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science will be searched to identify studies reporting the prevalence of obesity, overweight, and underweight in patients with ASD. Retrieved records will be independently screened by 2 authors and relevant estimates will be extracted from studies reporting data on obesity, overweight, and underweight prevalence among individuals with ASD. The assessment of study quality will be conducted primarily using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and checklist proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Prevalence estimates of obesity and overweight will be separately pooled using random-effects model. The pooled estimates will be summarized and presented by regional groupings. Subgroup analysis will be conducted for variables (such as study setting, participants' age, and geographical region) across studies, depending on data availability. Between-study heterogeneity will be assessed using the I statistic and explored through subgroup analyses. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist and the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology statements guidelines for meta-analysis and systematic reviews of observational studies. RESULTS: In this study, we will outline details of the aims and methods on the meta-analysis of weight status of individuals with ASD. CONCLUSION: The results of this study will summarize the current data of weight status of individuals with ASD. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42019130790).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".