Contemporary screen time usage among children 9–10‐years‐old is associated with higher body mass index percentile at 1‐year follow‐up: A prospective cohort study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of prospective research exploring the relationship among contemporary screen time modalities (e.g., video streaming, video chatting, texting and social networking) and body mass index (BMI) percentile. The objective of this study was to determine the prospective associations between screen time behaviours in a large and demographically diverse population-based cohort of 9-10-year-old children and BMI percentile at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: We analyzed prospective cohort data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (N = 11 066). Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to estimate associations between baseline screen time behaviours (exposure) and BMI percentile at 1-year follow-up, adjusting for race/ethnicity, sex, household income, parent education, depression, binge-eating disorder and baseline BMI percentile. RESULTS: Each additional hour of total screen time per day was prospectively associated with a 0.22 higher BMI percentile at 1-year follow-up (95% CI 0.10-0.34) after adjusting for covariates. When examining specific screen time behaviours, each additional hour of texting (B = 0.92, 95% CI 0.29-1.55), video chat (B = 0.72, 95% CI 0.09-1.36) and video games (B = 0.42, 95% CI 0.06-0.78) was significantly prospectively associated with higher BMI percentile. CONCLUSIONS: Screen time is prospectively associated with a higher BMI percentile 1 year later among children 9-10 years old.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it