Food Environment Access for Obesity Risk in Suburban Adolescent Cohorts
Keywords:
Adolescent Obesity, Food Environment, Spatial Accessibility, Mixed Evaluation, Obesity RiskAbstract
The escalating prevalence of obesity among adolescent populations represents a critical public health challenge globally, with suburban environments presenting unique spatial and infrastructural dynamics that significantly influence dietary behaviors. This paper presents a comprehensive academic investigation into predicting obesity risk by analyzing food environment access through a mixed evaluation framework specifically tailored for suburban adolescent cohorts. Traditional approaches to understanding the obesogenic environment have often relied either exclusively on quantitative geographic information system metrics or solely on qualitative self-reported dietary surveys. By contrast, this study proposes a robust mixed evaluation methodology that seamlessly integrates objective spatial accessibility data concerning fast food outlets and supermarkets with subjective, lived-experience data regarding adolescent dietary habits and nutritional choices. Through extensive spatial mapping and rigorous cohort surveying, the research explores how the proximity and density of specific food retail nodes correlate with elevated body mass index percentiles in youth. The findings elucidate that suburban areas, often characterized by high automobile dependency and fragmented pedestrian infrastructure, uniquely exacerbate the risk factors associated with food swamps. By synthesizing these diverse data streams, the predictive model demonstrates enhanced accuracy in identifying high-risk demographic clusters compared to isolated evaluation methods. The insights derived from this study hold profound implications for urban planning, public health policy, and targeted nutritional interventions aimed at mitigating adolescent obesity in rapidly expanding suburban landscapes.References
1. Brown, R.P.; Delp, M.D.; Lindstedt, S.L.; Rhomberg, L.R.; Beliles, R.P. Physiological parameter values for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. Toxicol. Ind. Health 1997, 13, 407–484.
2. Delpierre, C.; Lefèvre, T. Precision and personalized medicine: What their current definition says and silences about the model of health they promote. Implication for the development of personalized health. Front. Sociol. 2023, 8, 1112159.
3. Morais, C.C.A.; Koyama, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Plens, G.M.; Gomes, S.; Lima, C.A.S.; Ramos, O.P.S.; Pereira, S.M.; Kawaguchi, N.; Yamamoto, H.; et al. High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Renders Spontaneous Effort Noninjurious. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 197, 1285–1296. [ Central]
4. Khoshfekr Rudsari, H.; Tseng, B.; Zhu, H.; Song, L.; Gu, C.; Roy, A.; Irajizad, E.; Butner, J.; Long, J.; Do, K.A. Digital twins in healthcare: A comprehensive review and future directions. Front. Digit. Health 2025, 7, 1633539.
5. Coroneos, C.J.; Selber, J.C.; Offodile, A.C.I.; Butler, C.E.; Clemens, M.W. US FDA Breast Implant Postapproval Studies: Long-Term Outcomes in 99,993 Patients. Ann. Surg. 2019, 269, 33–36.
6. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network; Brower, R.G.; Matthay, M.A.; Morris, A.; Schoenfeld, D.; Thompson, B.T.; Wheeler, A. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000, 342, 1301–1308.
7. Phoophiboon, V.; Rodrigues, A.; Ko, M.; Docci, M.; Madotto, F.; Schreiber, A.; Butterworth, R.; Menga, L.S.; Gerardy, B.; Bizios, A.; et al. Pressure Support Ventilation in Neurosurgical Patients: Can We Safely Reduce Assistance? Evaluation of Neurosurgical Patients’ Ventilation Distribution—The ENVISION Study. Crit. Care Explor. 2025, 7, e1347. [ Central]
8. Cornejo, R.A.; Brito, R.; Rivera, C.; Morais, C.C.A.; Arellano, D.H.; Lazo, M.T.; Fuentes, A.; Paredes, E.; Rojas, V.; Bravo, M.F.; et al. Influence of ventilatory settings on pendelluft and expiratory muscle activity in hypoxemic patients resuming spontaneous breathing. Crit. Care 2025, 30, 13. [ Central]
9. Akilbekova, D.; Bratlie, K.M. Quantitative Characterization of Collagen in the Fibrotic Capsule Surrounding Implanted Polymeric Microparticles through Second Harmonic Generation Imaging. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130386.
10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Analyses—Format and Content Guidance for Industry; FDA Guidance Document; U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2018.
11. Anderson, J.M.; Jiang, S. Implications of the Acute and Chronic Inflammatory Response and the Foreign Body Reaction to the Immune Response of Implanted Biomaterials. In The Immune Response to Implanted Materials and Devices: The Impact of the Immune System on the Success of an Implant; Corradetti, B., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 15–36.
12. Palpacuer, C.; Hammas, K.; Duprez, R.; Laviolle, B.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Naudet, F. Vibration of effects from diverse inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical choices: 9216 different ways to perform an indirect comparison meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2019, 17, 174.
13. Gonnabathula, P.; Li, M.; Nagumalli, S.K.; Mehta, D.; Fairman, K. Applications of PBPK Modeling to Estimate Drug Metabolism and Related ADME Processes in Specific Populations. Pharmaceutics 2025, 17, 1207.
14. Schneider, J.W. Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: The basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations. Scientometrics 2015, 102, 411–432.
15. Gigerenzer, G.; Krauss, S.; Vitouch, O. The Null Ritual: What You Always Wanted to Know About Significance Testing but Were Afraid to Ask. In The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences; Kaplan, D., Ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 392–409.
16. Takita, H.; Barnett, S.; Zhang, Y.; Ménochet, K.; Shen, H.; Ogungbenro, K.; Galetin, A. PBPK Model of Coproporphyrin I: Evaluation of the Impact of SLCO1B1 Genotype, Ethnicity, and Sex on its Inter-Individual Variability. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2021, 10, 137–147.
17. Szychta, P. Aesthetic Potential and Safety Profile of Nanotextured Breast Implants in 1000 Cases of Breast Augmentation: Evaluation of a Single-Center Experience. Aesthetic Surg. J. 2024, 44, 925–935.
18. Ham, J.; Kim, Y.; An, T.; Kang, S.; Ha, C.; Wufue, M.; Kim, Y.; Jeon, B.; Kim, S.; Kim, J.; et al. Covalently Grafted 2-Methacryloyloxyethyl Phosphorylcholine Networks Inhibit Fibrous Capsule Formation around Silicone Breast Implants in a Porcine Model. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 30198–30212.
19. Maia, I.S.; Pincelli, M.P.; Zandonai, C.L.; Oliveira, J.S.; Tramujas, L.; Ferreira, J.C.; Cavalcanti, A.B. Comparison of PEEP titration methods to improve respiratory system compliance in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A randomized controlled study. Crit. Care Sci. 2026, 38, e20260143.
20. Borges, J.B.; Suarez-Sipmann, F.; Bohm, S.H.; Tusman, G.; Melo, A.; Maripuu, E.; Sandström, M.; Park, M.; Costa, E.L.; Hedenstierna, G.; et al. Regional lung perfusion estimated by electrical impedance tomography in a piglet model of lung collapse. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012, 112, 225–236.
21. Ivanescu, A.E.; Li, P.; George, B.; Brown, A.W.; Keith, S.W.; Raju, D.; Allison, D.B. The importance of prediction model validation and assessment in obesity and nutrition research. Int. J. Obes. 2016, 40, 887–894.
22. Dzobo, K.; Khumalo, N.; Mora, V.Z.; Zoncsich, A.; De Mezerville, R.; Bayat, A. Advances in Silicone Implants Characterization: A Comprehensive Overview of Chemical, Physical and Biological Methods for Biocompatibility Assessment. Bioengineering 2025, 12, 1307.
23. Electrospun Poly(ε-Caprolactone) Fiber Scaffolds Functionalized by the Covalent Grafting of a Bioactive Polymer: Surface Characterization and Influence on in Vitro Biological Response | ACS Omega. Available online: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.9b01647 (accessed on 7 March 2026).
24. Schervish, M.J. P Values: What They Are and What They Are Not. Am. Stat. 1996, 50, 203–206.
25. Dzobo, K.; Wilgus, T.A.; Mora, V.Z.; Zoncsich, A.; de Mezerville, R.; Khumalo, N.; Bayat, A. Biomimetic Optimization of Silicone Breast Implant Integration: Insights into Wound Healing and the Foreign Body Response. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2025, 13, 1668930.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Uncertainty and Variability in Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models: Key Issues and Case Studies; EPA/600/R-08/090; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
27. Meehl, P.E. The Problem Is Epistemology, Not Statistics: Replace Significance Tests by Confidence Intervals and Quantify Accuracy of Risky Numerical Predictions. In What If There Were No Significance Tests? Harlow, L.L., Mulaik, S.A., Steiger, J.H., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1997.
28. Bletsis, P.P.; Bouwer, L.R.; Ultee, K.H.; Cromheecke, M.; van der Lei, B. Evaluation of Anatomical and Round Breast Implant Aesthetics and Preferences in Dutch Young Lay and Plastic Surgeon Cohort. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. JPRAS 2018, 71, 1116–1122.
29. El Hassani, M.; Marsot, A. External Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models for Precision Dosing: Current State and Knowledge Gaps. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2023, 62, 533–540.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.
