Parent-Child association in body weight status.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of overweight and obesity among children and adults has risen in Canada. Studies suggest that parent obesity is a risk factor for overweight and obesity in children. This analysis examines associations between biological parent and child body mass index (BMI) in a nationally representative sample of Canadian children. DATA AND METHODS: The analysis is based on data collected for 1,563 children aged 6 to 10 in the first three cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (2007 to 2013). BMI was calculated using measured height and weight. Pearson correlation, logistic, and linear regression analyses examined associations between biological parent and child BMI and obesity status, controlling for other risk factors. RESULTS: Biological parent and child BMI were correlated. When risk factors were taken into account, a child's average BMI increased as their parent's BMI increased. Parent BMI explained 2% of the variance in boys' BMI and 12% of the variance in girls' BMI. Boys and girls with a biological parent who was obese were at increased risk of being overweight or obese. Girls were also at increased risk of being overweight or obese if a biological parent was overweight. INTERPRETATION: Children's body weight status is associated with that of at least one of their biological parents. Having an obese parent increases the risk of overweight or obesity among children in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".