MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

[ID 51785] FATORES ASSOCIADOS AO CONSUMO DE GULOSEIMAS ENTRE ADOLESCENTES ATENDIDOS EM UM AMBULATÓRIO DE NUTRIÇÃO

2020· article· pt· W3114395469 on OpenAlexaff
Andressa Pestana Brito, Adriana Sousa Rêgo, Rayane Palhano Paiva Diniz Sousa, Ana Luísa Neris Reis, Amanda Gonçalves Mota, Allanne Pereira Araújo, Flor de Maria Araújo Mendonça Silva, Janaína Maiana Abreu Barbosa

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Ciências da Saúde · 2020
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Health and Education
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objetivo: Verificar os fatores associados ao consumo de guloseimas entre adolescentes atendidos em um ambulatório de nutrição. Metodologia: Estudo transversal analítico, com 217 prontuários de adolescentes, os quais foram investigadas as variáveis socioeconômicas, demográficas, estilo de vida e antropométricas. Realizou-se análise multivariada pelo método regressão de Poisson robusto por meio do programa Stata® versão 14.0. Resultados: Dos adolescentes pesquisados, 61,8% eram do sexo feminino e 58,1% tinham idade entre 10 a 14 anos. Quanto à escolaridade dos adolescentes, 58,3% estavam cursando o ensino fundamental e 50% possuíam renda familiar até um salário-mínimo. Sobre o consumo de guloseimas, 77,1% relataram consumi-las. Com relação ao estado nutricional, 51,6% estavam com excesso de peso e 66,4% apresentaram risco cardiovascular de acordo com a Rcest. Observou-se que possuir o hábito de comer em frente à TV (RP=1,38; IC= 1,13-1,67) e ter o diagnóstico de desnutrição (RP=0,57; IC= 0,36-0,87) foram associados ao consumo de guloseimas. Conclusão: Detectou-se elevado consumo de guloseimas entre os adolescentes, estando associado à desnutrição e alimentar-se em frente à TV. Espera-se que este estudo chame atenção para a importância de uma alimentação balanceada e saudável, tanto para os pais quanto para os adolescentes e, assim, sensibilizá-los quanto à prevenção de diversas patologias.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.303 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de Ciências da SaúdeSame topicIndigenous Health and EducationFrench-language works237,207