The association between adverse childhood experiences and childhood obesity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with numerous physical and mental health issues in children and adults. The effect of ACEs on development of childhood obesity is less understood. This systematic review was undertaken to synthesize the quantitative research examining the relationship between ACEs and childhood obesity. PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched in July 2020; Rayyan was used to screen studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. The search resulted in 6,966 studies screened at title/abstract and 168 at full-text level. Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Study quality was moderate, with greatest risk of bias due to method of assessment of ACEs or sample attrition. Findings suggest ACEs are associated with childhood obesity. Girls may be more sensitive to obesity-related effects of ACEs than boys, sexual abuse appears to have a greater effect on childhood obesity than other ACEs, and co-occurrence of multiple ACEs may be associated with greater childhood obesity risk. Further, the effect of ACEs on development of childhood obesity may take 2-5 years to manifest. Considered collectively, findings suggest a need for greater attention to ACEs in the prevention and treatment of childhood obesity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".