Adiposity and the role of diverse social supports: an observational, gender-sensitive study using the baseline Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify associations between four types of social support and measured adiposity among women and men. DESIGN: The cross-sectional sample from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA, 2012-2015). Height, weight and waist circumference (WC) were clinically measured, and perceived availability of informational, tangible, emotional and belonging social supports was self-reported. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 28 779 adults aged 45-85 years from the CLSA. RESULTS: All social support types were associated with WC and BMI among women but not among men. Women reporting the lowest informational support had significantly higher mean BMI (28·84 kg/m2 (95 % CI 28·63, 29·05)) and WC (90·81 cm (95 % CI 90·31, 91·30)) compared with women reporting maximum support (respectively, 28·09 kg/m2 (95 % CI 27·88, 28·30) and 88·92 cm (95 % CI 88·43, 89·4)). Women's abdominal obesity was associated with low levels of informational, emotional and belonging support, and women's general obesity with informational and emotional support. Notably, informational and emotional support were associated with both obesity outcomes independent of other supports among women. Only a low level of informational support was significantly independently associated with higher odds of obesity among men. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides novel insights into gender-specific associations between different types of social support and adiposity. Prospective studies are needed to further investigate potential causality of these associations between the specific social supports and future weight status, especially among women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".