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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1510.021

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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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