MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986588406 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028238

Neighbourhood socioeconomic status and overweight/obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

2019· review· en· W2986588406 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightMedicineMeta-analysisObesityBody mass indexSocioeconomic statusObservational studyCochrane LibraryPublication biasSystematic reviewOdds ratioEpidemiologyFunnel plotDemographyEnvironmental healthGerontologyMEDLINEPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Low neighbourhood socioeconomic status (NSES) has been linked to a higher risk of overweight/obesity, irrespective of the individual’s own socioeconomic status. No meta-analysis study has been done on the association. Thus, this study was done to synthesise the existing evidence on the association of NSES with overweight, obesity and body mass index (BMI). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles published until 25 September 2019. Eligibility criteria Epidemiological studies, both longitudinal and cross-sectional ones, which examined the link of NSES to overweight, obesity or BMI, were included. Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction was done by two reviewers, working independently. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the observational studies. The summary estimates of the relationships of NSES with overweight, obesity and BMI statuses were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis models. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q and I 2 statistics. Subgroup analyses were done by age categories, continents, study designs and NSES measures. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots and Egger’s regression test. Result A total of 21 observational studies, covering 1 244 438 individuals, were included in this meta-analysis. Low NSES, compared with high NSES, was found to be associated with a 31% higher odds of overweight (pooled OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47, p<0.001), a 45% higher odds of obesity (pooled OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.74, p<0.001) and a 1.09 kg/m 2 increase in mean BMI (pooled beta=1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50, p<0.001). Conclusion NSES disparity might be contributing to the burden of overweight/obesity. Further studies are warranted, including whether addressing NSES disparity could reduce the risk of overweight/obesity. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017063889

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.499
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.071 · 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