MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308718013 · doi:10.3390/nu14224715

Factors Associated with Eating in the Absence of Hunger among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4308718013 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Savard, Stéphanie Bégin, Véronique Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOverweightChildhood obesityObesityMedicineLongitudinal studyDemographyPediatricsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eating in the absence of hunger (EAH) has been extensively studied over the past two decades and has been associated with excess body weight and the development of obesity. However, determinants of EAH remain uncertain. This systematic review aims to identify individual, familial, and environmental factors associated with EAH among children and adolescents. We included studies with a measure of EAH in participants aged 3-17 years old and including ≥1 factor associated with EAH. Our search identified 1494 articles. Of these, we included 81 studies: 53 cross-sectional, 19 longitudinal and nine intervention studies. In childhood (≤12 years old), EAH increases with age, it is greater in boys compared to girls, and it is positively associated with adiposity. Moreover, EAH development seems to be influenced by genetics. In adolescence, the number of studies is limited; yet, studies show that EAH slightly increases or remains stable with age, is not clearly different between sexes, and findings for overweight or obesity are less consistent across studies in adolescence. For familial factors, parental restrictive feeding practices are positively associated with EAH during childhood, mostly for girls. Studies assessing environmental factors are lacking and robust longitudinal studies spanning from early childhood to adolescence are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207