MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284971649 · doi:10.1177/10105395221108593

Relationships of Tobacco Use and Kava Consumption to Sex-Associated Variation in Body Composition and Obesity Risk in Melanesian Adults From Vanuatu

2022· article· en· W4284971649 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn M. Olszowy, Amanda Roome, Elisabeth Standard, Len Tarivonda, George Taleo, Kelsey N. Dancause

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicinal Plant Extracts Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersWenner-Gren Foundation
KeywordsKavaObesityAnthropometryBody mass indexWaistDemographyMedicinePopulationEnvironmental healthTraditional medicineEndocrinologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity prevalence has increased in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) over the past several decades, with generally greater occurrence among adult females compared with males. Gendered variation in health behaviors, such as substance use, may play a role in how differences in obesity, body size, and composition manifest in association with sex. This study examines sex-moderated relationships of tobacco smoking and kava consumption with body composition and obesity among 301 Ni-Vanuatu (local self-identification meaning “of Vanuatu”) adults. Data collected included self-reported frequency of substance use as well as anthropometric measurements to assess body mass, composition, and obesity. Tobacco and kava use were associated with reduced measurements of body mass and adiposity in males, and kava use was associated with some elevated measurements of body mass and hip circumference in females. Kava use was also negatively associated with obesity based on waist-to-height ratio among males. These results have implications for evaluation and future research on substance control programs in this population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal of Public HealthSame topicMedicinal Plant Extracts EffectsFrench-language works237,207