MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312187402 · doi:10.3390/ijerph20010121

Understanding the Link between Household Food Insecurity and Self-Rated Oral Health in Ghana

2022· article· en· W4312187402 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Amoak, Joseph Asumah Braimah, Williams Agyemang‐Duah, Nancy Osei Kye, Florence Wullo Anfaara, Yujiro Sano, Roger Antabe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoNipissing UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood insecurityEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionOral healthMedicineSelf-rated healthFood securityPsychologyGerontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing scholarly attention on the role of food insecurity on the health of older adults in sub-Saharan Africa, including Ghana. Yet, we know very little about the association between food insecurity and self-rated oral health. To address this void in the literature, this study uses a representative survey of adults aged 60 or older from three regions in Ghana to examine whether respondents who experienced household food insecurity rated their oral health as poor compared to their counterparts who did not. We found that 34% of respondents rated their oral health as poor, while 7%, 21%, and 36% experienced mild, moderate, and severe food insecurity, respectively. Moreover, the results from the logistic regression analysis showed that older adults who experienced mild (OR = 1.66, p < 0.05), moderate (OR = 2.06, p < 0.01), and severe (OR = 2.71, p < 0.01) food insecurity were more likely to self-rate their oral health as poor, compared to those who did not experience any type of food insecurity. Based on these findings, we discuss several implications for policymakers and directions for future research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.597
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations→French-language works237,207→