MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319868840 · doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102135

Does obesity related eating behaviors only affect chronic diseases? A nationwide study of university students in China

2023· article· en· W4319868840 on OpenAlexaff
Sihui Peng, Dan Wu, Tingzhong Yang, Joan L. Bottorff

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Medicine Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesZhejiang University
KeywordsLogistic regressionOdds ratioObesityEnvironmental healthMedicineAffect (linguistics)Confidence intervalMental healthChinaChronic diseaseDiseaseGerontologyPsychiatryPsychologyFamily medicineInternal medicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary aims of this study are to examine associations between obesity-related eating behaviors (OEB) and chronic and infectious diseases, and mental disorders. A representative nationwide survey was used to collect information among 11,659 medical students from 31 universities in China. Multiple variable logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the associations between OEB and the diseases. The multiple variable logistic regression model found that OEB was significantly associated with chronic disease (OR (Odds Ratio): 1.74 < 95 % C.I (Confidence Interval): 1.45, 2.65 > ), infectious disease (OR: 3.37 < 95 % C.I: 1.04, 1.81 > ), and mental disorder (OR: 1.87(<95 % C.I: 1.55, 2.25 > ). These findings underscore the importance of addressing OEB in programs and policies to promote health and prevent disease among university students.

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)0.002
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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Medicine ReportsSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207