1

The 3 unclear columns from the obesity dataset are:

family_history_with_overweight : - This column contains “yes” or “no” values. Without documentation, we may not fully understand what is meant by “family history” in this context. Is it one’s immediate family member, or does it refer to extended family? Reason for Encoding: Encoding it as “yes” or “no” simplifies the analysis into a binary format, making it easier to categorize. Potential Confusion: Without clarification, one might assume family history includes distant relatives, which could mislead the analysis.

FAVC (Frequent consumption of high caloric food) :Here “FAVC” might not be immediately recognizable. Does it refer to processed foods or only high-caloric foods like sweets and junk food or does it even refer to foods? Reason for Encoding: Using a term like “FAVC” shortens the data field, which can help reduce data size and make data entry faster. Potential Confusion: If the term was unclear, users might think it refers to overall unhealthy eating habits rather than high-caloric foods specifically.

NObeyesdad (Obesity class): The column uses a non-intuitive term, and its values like “Insufficient_Weight,” “Normal_Weight,” “Obesity_Type_I,” “Obesity_Type_II” may not be straightforward until you refer to the documentation to understand which ranges of BMI (Body Mass Index) correspond to these classes. Reason for Encoding: By using discrete categories such as “Obesity_Type_I” or “Obesity_Type_II,” the data becomes easier to segment and analyze for various levels of obesity. Potential Confusion: Without documentation, the specific cutoffs or definitions for these obesity levels would be unknown, leading to a potential misunderstanding.

Reason for Encoding data the way they did:

The dataset designers chose this kind of encoding (binary “yes/no” values, acronyms, categorical obesity classes) for several reasons:

Efficiency: Reducing data size by using terms and binary values makes the dataset smaller and easier to manage.

Consistency: Consistent categorization, especially for obesity classes, helps researchers group individuals and make comparisons across a clear set of categories.

Accessibility: Simplifying complex information into binary or categorical formats makes it easier to analyze using various statistical and machine learning models.

Implications of Not Reading the Documentat

family_history_with_overweight column Implication: Misinterpretation could skew your analysis by falsely associating genetic factors with obesity trends in the dataset. This could lead to misleading conclusions, especially in research on the heritability of obesity. Statistical models could produce inaccurate results, as a confounding factor (misinterpreted family history) was not properly understood.

FAVC (Frequent consumption of high-caloric food) Implication: You could design a machine learning model that misclassifies or overlooks important details about eating behavior. For instance, your model might incorrectly lump healthy high-calorie foods (e.g., nuts, avocados) with junk food, leading to poor predictive performance. Your model’s predictions about the relationship between eating habits and obesity might become less precise because you’ve included incorrect assumptions.

NObeyesdad (Obesity class) Implication: Misclassifying individuals into the wrong obesity category can lead to faulty analysis in studies focused on obesity prevalence or interventions. For example, if your obesity cut-offs are wrong, your estimates of how many people are at risk for certain health conditions could be wildly inaccurate. Additionally, when using the dataset to train machine learning models, incorrect labels could result in poor model accuracy and incorrect classifications. - In summary, failing to read the documentation and understand how data is encoded can have profound impacts on your analysis. These range from simple misunderstandings that skew insights to critical errors that affect research validity and public health recommendations. Properly interpreting each column in the dataset ensures that your analysis, models, and visualizations are grounded in an accurate understanding of the data, thereby leading to more reliable and impactful outcomes.

2

unclear element even after rerading the documentation

One element in the Obesity Dataset that remains unclear, even after reviewing the documentation, is the specific cutoffs used for certain lifestyle-related variables, such as physical activity and eating habits. While the documentation provides general explanations for these variables, it does not specify how certain thresholds were chosen or what qualifies as “frequent” versus “infrequent” in some cases.

Unclear Element: Physical Activity Levels(CAEC) Column: CAEC (Consumption of food between meals) - This column refers to the frequency with which a participant consumes food between meals. The possible values include: “no” “Sometimes” “Frequently” “Always” Unclear Aspect: While the documentation defines the categories, it does not explain what qualifies as “Sometimes” versus “Frequently.” There is no clear threshold given, such as whether “Sometimes” means 1–2 times per week, or if “Frequently” means daily or more than once per day. This ambiguity leaves room for subjective interpretation by the data collectors or respondents.

Unclear Element: SCC (Sweets consumption) Column: SCC - This column describes the level of sweets consumption with categories like “no,” “Sometimes,” “Frequently,” and “Always.” Unclear Aspect: Like with food consumption between meals, the documentation does not provide specific criteria for what constitutes “Frequently” or “Always.” Does “Frequently” mean consuming sweets multiple times a day or multiple times a week? This lack of clarity can make it difficult to interpret the variable in the context of diet and obesity risk.

Unclear Element: Physical Activity Frequency Column: FAF (Physical activity frequency) - The dataset records the frequency of physical activity as “no,” “low,” “moderate,” and “high.” Unclear Aspect: The documentation does not explain how these categories were determined. How much physical activity qualifies as “low” versus “moderate” or “high”? Without specific information on the intensity and duration of physical activity, it’s hard to know what these categories mean in practical terms. Without specific definitions or cutoffs for these categories, there’s a chance of inconsistent interpretations of the data, especially when comparing this dataset to other research works.

3

Visualization

  • Creating a visualization for the “family_history_with_overweight” cOlumn
# Load the dataset
obesity <- read.csv("C:/Users/saisr/Downloads/estimation+of+obesity+levels+based+on+eating+habits+and+physical+condition/obesity.csv")

# View the first few rows of the dataset
head(obesity)
##   Gender Age Height Weight family_history_with_overweight FAVC FCVC NCP
## 1 Female  21   1.62   64.0                            yes   no    2   3
## 2 Female  21   1.52   56.0                            yes   no    3   3
## 3   Male  23   1.80   77.0                            yes   no    2   3
## 4   Male  27   1.80   87.0                             no   no    3   3
## 5   Male  22   1.78   89.8                             no   no    2   1
## 6   Male  29   1.62   53.0                             no  yes    2   3
##        CAEC SMOKE CH2O SCC FAF TUE       CALC                MTRANS
## 1 Sometimes    no    2  no   0   1         no Public_Transportation
## 2 Sometimes   yes    3 yes   3   0  Sometimes Public_Transportation
## 3 Sometimes    no    2  no   2   1 Frequently Public_Transportation
## 4 Sometimes    no    2  no   2   0 Frequently               Walking
## 5 Sometimes    no    2  no   0   0  Sometimes Public_Transportation
## 6 Sometimes    no    2  no   0   0  Sometimes            Automobile
##            NObeyesdad
## 1       Normal_Weight
## 2       Normal_Weight
## 3       Normal_Weight
## 4  Overweight_Level_I
## 5 Overweight_Level_II
## 6       Normal_Weight
# Load necessary libraries
library(ggplot2)

# Example of loading the UCI Obesity dataset (replace with actual loading code)
# obesity <- read.csv("obesity.csv")

# Create a simple bar plot of Family History of Overweight vs Obesity levels
ggplot(obesity, aes(x = family_history_with_overweight, fill = NObeyesdad)) +
  geom_bar(position = "fill") +
  labs(
    title = "Impact of Family History on Obesity Levels",
    x = "Family History of Overweight",
    y = "Proportion",
    fill = "Obesity Levels"
  ) +
  annotate(
    "text",
    x = 1.5, y = 0.9, label = "Unclear if this includes extended or only immediate family",
    color = "red", size = 4, hjust = 0.5
  ) +
  theme_minimal()

Insights The plot shows two groups based on family history: those who do have a family history of overweight and those who do not. Each group is further divided into proportions of different obesity levels. Visual Representation:

The height of the bars indicates the proportion of individuals in each obesity category within the two groups. For example, if the bar representing individuals with a family history of overweight is significantly taller for Obesity Level 2, it suggests that a larger proportion of those with a family history fall into this category compared to those without such a history.

Summary: This bar plot shows the relationship between having a family history of overweight and the obesity levels (NObeyesdad) in the dataset. The data suggests that those with a family history of overweight may be more likely to fall into certain obesity categories. However, there is ambiguity in the data regarding the “family history” column: The column “family_history_with_overweight” only indicates yes or no, but it is not clear if this includes only immediate family members (parents, siblings) or if it also covers extended family (aunts, uncles, grandparents). This vagueness could skew how we interpret the influence of genetics on obesity.

Significant Risks: Misinterpretation of Results: If we assume the data reflects only immediate family members, but extended family members were included, our conclusions about the genetic influence on obesity might be overstated. Lack of Data Precision: This ambiguity can lead to inaccurate models or analyses that assume too broad or narrow a scope of family history. For example, healthcare professionals or researchers might overemphasize genetic factors without fully accounting for lifestyle or environmental factors.

How to Reduce Negative Consequences? Ideally, the dataset should be revised or supplemented with more detailed information about which family members were considered in this column. In the absence of clear information, we should explicitly state any assumptions made in our analysis, noting that “family history” could refer to a broad or narrow definition. This would help contextualize the results. Collect More Detailed Data: If possible, the dataset should gather more detailed family history information, such as asking about obesity in specific family members.

Further questions to be investigated

1.What specific family members are included in the “family history of overweight” category? 2. How was the data for family history of overweight collected? Was it self-reported? 3. What criteria were used to classify individuals into different obesity categories? 4. What other factors could influence obesity levels (e.g., diet, physical activity, socioeconomic status)? 5. How might cultural or environmental factors impact the interpretation of family history and obesity?