FOOD INSECURITY AND CHILDHOOD OBESITY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Food security for children is a public health issue. Childhood food insecurity is a major public health issue in low-income and developing nations. The 2011–2012 prevalence of childhood obesity was 16.9%, despite a plateau. The link between the two is crucial for proper management. Objective: this systematic review will further discuss the relationship between food insecurity and the occurrence of obesity in childhood. Methods: This systematic review used PRISMA guideline, the database used is PubMed, Web of Science, dan Science Direct. ((Food) AND (Insecurity) AND (Relation) OR (influence) AND (Pediatric) OR (Children) AND (Obesity) OR (Fat) OR (Nutritional status)) are used as keywords. Additionally, manual searches are conducted to obtain articles that satisfy the specified criteria. Discrepancies are resolved through consensus with the third author. Results: There were a total of 12,574 cases included in the study. With ages ranging from five to eighteen. Ethiopia, Canada, the U.S., and Atlanta are among the origins of the research. With investigation years spanning from 2014 to 2022. Children's lack of physical exercise, irregular intake patterns, excessive consumption out of fear of food deterioration, and occasional fruit and vegetable consumption contribute to obesity in food-insecure groups. Majority of population has poor socioeconomic conditions. Conclusion: Food insecurity is linked to obesity in families. This depends on several things. Childhood obesity management emphasises education and self-efficacy to eat well.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".