<p>The Healthy Kids Initiative: Results from the First 2000 Participants</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The comprehensive and free Healthy Kids Initiative (HKI) was developed with key features including social support, family support, and cognitive behavior education in order to promote program completion and improve health outcomes among youth. The first objective was to determine program completion rates and independent risk indicators for non-completion. The second objective was to determine the 12-week impact of the Healthy Kids Initiative on aerobic fitness, depressed mood and health-related quality of life. Patients and Methods: Obese youth (ages 10– 17) were referred to a community-based, multidisciplinary, free program by their doctor or pediatrician. Each participant was requested to attend the program with a “buddy” and complete three social support contracts with family and friends to support their behavioral modifications. The program duration was 12 weeks with physical activity, dietary, and cognitive behavior education sessions. Those who completed the program, and those who did not, were compared across socioeconomic variables, age, gender, depressed mood and aerobic fitness. Results: Across five cohorts, 1789 of 1995 youth completed the program (89.7% completion rate). Five referred youth never started. Independent risk indicators associated with non-completion included older age (OR 3.07, 95% CI 2.26– 4.17; p< 0.001), mother with a non-professional occupation (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.22– 2.78; p=0.004), and living in a low-income neighborhood (OR 9.37, 95% CI 5.61– 15.65; p< 0.001). There were significant improvements from baseline for aerobic fitness (mCAFT score 35.84 to 55.72 mL × kg − 1 × min − 1 ; p< 0.001), depressed mood (mean CES-D 12 score 21.47 to 17.40; p< 0.001), and health-related quality of life (mean SF-12 score 23.4 to 33.8; p< 0.001). Conclusion: The HKI program had high completion rates and early success in improving outcomes. Knowing the independent risk indicators for non-completion will allow for program revision to help at-risk participants complete the program. Keywords: adolescent, community-based, obese, aerobic fitness, adherence, physical activity
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".