Family meal frequency and its association with food consumption and nutritional status in adolescents: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review evaluated the association between frequency of family meals (FFM) and nutritional status (NS) and/or food consumption (FC) in adolescents. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017062180) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. No publication date, language, or meal type restrictions were imposed. Only full-text original articles were included; qualitative studies were excluded. Studies were identified by searching 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BVS Brazil, and Adolec) and gray literature (Google Scholar) and by scanning reference lists of included articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort and cross-sectional studies. Initial search yielded 2001 results and 47 articles were included. An updated literature search added 3 articles. Of the 50 studies included, 25 studied the association between FFM and NS, 32 investigated the association between FFM and FC, being that seven studies analyzed both outcomes. Thirty-four were cross-sectional studies, 12 were longitudinal studies, and 4 studies analyzed both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Thirty-five studies were rated as having good quality, whereas 19 were of fair quality. Sample size ranged from 140 to 102 072 participants. Most investigations evaluated the frequency of breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner/supper/evening meals over a 1-week period. Seventeen studies identified a positive relationship between high FFM and better NS, and 26 found a positive association between high FFM and better FC. In conclusion, this review showed an association between FFM and healthy dietary patterns, such as increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. Further research is needed to understand the association between FFM and NS, since some studies showed a protective role of family meals against obesity in this age group, whereas other studies identified no significant association between these variables.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".