P1081 PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT IN OBESE CHILDREN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
patterns of adiposity are the result of gene-environment interacting.This study was performed in order to compare the differences between food intake and energy expenditure among obese and non-obese adolescent sibling (having almost similar genetic background).Methods: This case-control study was performed in 2003 on 50 pairs of obese and non-obese sibling aged 11-18 matched for age and sex.The food intake was evaluated by 3-day food record and analyzed by software special for Iranian foods.Energy expenditure was evaluated by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) questionnaire (WHO).Results: The mean energy intake of obese adolescents was significantly higher and their mean energy expenditure was significantly lower than their non-obese sibling (2839 and 1221 vs. 1370 and 1590 kcal; respectively, P<0.001).The mean intake of protein, carbohydrate and fat of obese adolescents was significantly higher than their non-obese sibling (120.33 and 115 vs. 51.17 and 51 gram.respectively; P<0.001).Also, the mean intake of cholesterol and SFA of obese adolescents was significantly higher than their non-obese sibling (440mg and 39g vs. 265mg and 17g, respectively; p<0.01).Conclusion: Differences in lifestyle has a considerable impact on the process of obesity from early life and family education should be emphasized in this regard.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".