Consumption of fruits and vegetables among adolescents in Arab Countries: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents' consumption of fruits and vegetables is inadequate in most Arab countries, leading to a higher risk of poor health outcomes. This systematic review evaluates fruits and vegetables intake among adolescents in Arab countries, the proportion of adolescents meeting the dietary guidelines in these countries, and the dietary assessment tools used to assess fruits and vegetables intake. METHODS: Four databases were searched, MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Studies were eligible if they reported fruit or vegetable consumption among adolescents aged 10 to 19 in 22 Arab countries. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed by two reviewers independently using the risk of bias tool developed by Hoy et al. Data were extracted and synthesized into three categories; frequency of fruits and vegetables consumption, mean fruits and vegetables consumption, and percentage of adolescents meeting fruits and vegetables consumption recommendations. RESULTS: The review included 44 articles utilizing 41 cross-sectional studies. Most studies were school-based, and data was collected from both males and females using self-administered questionnaires. Of those, validated questionnaires were used in 28 studies. According to the World Health Organization recommendation, most studies defined five fruits and vegetables servings as the adequacy cutoff point; other definitions were used in some studies. The reported mean consumption ranged between 6.1 times per week and 4.5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day. The proportion of those who met the recommendations of eating five servings per day ranged between 10 and 29%. Fruits were shown to have a lower daily intake than vegetables (4.2 to 53.7% for fruits and 7.8 to 66.3% for vegetables). DISCUSSION: This review indicated inadequate fruits and vegetables consumption among adolescents in Arab countries and highlighted an increased risk of non-communicable diseases and malnutrition prevalence. A limitation was the incomparability of available data between countries. Further in-depth research on the core reasons behind adolescents' inadequacy in fruits and vegetables consumption is recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".