South American prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adolescentes from 2010 to 2020: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the South American prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents from 2010 to 2020. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, SCOPUS, LILACS, IBECS and, MedCarib databases. Only cross-sectional, cohort, case-control and clinical trials studies were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed independently by two review authors, using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random effect model by DerSimonian and Laird and inconsistency measure (I2) were used. RESULTS: In total, 532 articles met the inclusion criteria. 88 studies were included in the analysis and 80 were classified as high quality/low bias. The prevalence was: 28.3% (95% confidence interval [CI95%]=22.4;34.2% - I2=99.98%) of excess body weight, 17.8% of overweight (CI95%=14.3;21.3% - I2=99.94%) and 13.2% (CI95%=10.1;16.3% - I2=99.96%) of obesity. CONCLUSION: The South American prevalence of overweight was 17.8% and obesity was 13.2%. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity (I2>99%) probably due to the ethnic, cultural and methodological differences.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".