MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081870939 · doi:10.1111/dme.14396

Childhood food insecurity and incident diabetes: A longitudinal cohort study of 34 042 children in Ontario, Canada

2020· article· en· W3081870939 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristin K. Clemens, Britney Le, Kelly K. Anderson, Safa Shariff

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySt. Joseph's HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research Institute
FundersSchulich School of Medicine and DentistryWestern UniversityOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern OntarioLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioEnvironmental healthConfoundingCohort studyDiabetes mellitusPopulationProportional hazards modelCohortDemographyGerontologyConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To examine the association between childhood food insecurity and incident diabetes. METHODS: Using health administrative databases linked to the Canadian Community Health Survey, we conducted a population-based cohort study of children aged <18 years from Ontario, Canada. Children without diabetes who had a household response to the Canadian Community Health Survey Household Food Security Survey Module were followed for a median of 9.5 years for incident diabetes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the association between childhood food insecurity and incident diabetes, adjusted sequentially for important clinical and socio-economic risk factors. RESULTS: We included 34 042 children, of whom 5.3% lived in food-insecure households. There were 184 new cases of diabetes, diagnosed at a median age of 16 and 18.5 years in food-secure and food-insecure children, respectively. In unadjusted analysis, childhood food insecurity was associated with an increased risk of incident diabetes (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.81). When adjusted for clinical and socio-economic confounders, the relationship was no longer statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.55, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.66, adjusted for clinical confounders; hazard ratio 1.30, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.37, adjusted for clinical/socio-economic confounders). Our results remained robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Although food-insecure children are a medically and socially vulnerable population, they do not appear to be at increased risk of incident diabetes over a median of 9.5 years.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetic MedicineSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207