MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321230455 · doi:10.3390/children10020392

Prevalence of Breakfast Skippers among Tunisian Preschool and School Children and Association with Weight Status: A Cross-Sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4321230455 on OpenAlexaff
Darine Dogui, Radhouene Doggui, Jalila El Ati, Myriam El Ati‐Hellal

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyAssociation (psychology)Environmental healthDemographyMedicinePsychologyPediatricsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breakfast is considered the most important meal of the day. This study aimed to assess breakfast frequency and quality in Tunisian children and to determine the relationship between breakfast skipping and the weight status of the children. A total of 1200 preschool and school children aged 3 to 9 years were randomly selected under a cross-sectional design. Breakfast habits and socio-economic characteristics were collected using a questionnaire. Participants who consumed breakfast less than five times the previous week were categorized as breakfast skippers. The other breakfast consumers were considered as non-skippers. The overall prevalence of breakfast skipping in Tunisian children was 8.3% and 83% of them consumed breakfast all the weekdays. At least two out of three children had a poor breakfast quality. Only 1% of children consumed breakfast in accordance with the composition guidelines. No relationships between breakfast skipping and weight status were detected in this study after adjustment for age, sex and all socio-economic factors (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.72–1.89, p = 0.541). Further school-based interventions should be implemented to improve breakfast quality and to promote a healthy weight in Tunisian children.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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