MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1559413745 · doi:10.1111/j.1758-8111.2010.00001.x

<i>Clinical Obesity</i> – a new journal for a new clinical era

2010· editorial· en· W1559413745 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nick Finer

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Obesity · 2010
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSpecialtyObesityBody mass indexPsychological interventionPopulationHealth careOverweightGerontologyAnthropometryFamily medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicineNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Clinical Obesity has been established by the International Association for the Study of Obesity (IASO) and Wiley-Blackwell to meet the growing need for disseminating clinical research into obesity. The extraordinary worldwide growth in obesity prevalence in adults and children alike over the past 30 years is only matched by the extraordinary projections of continued increases over the next 30 years. In any arena of clinical care (primary care, internal medicine, general surgery or secondary care specialities), healthcare professionals are facing a new patient profile – the obese individual with all of his/her risk factors and associated diseases. These are often severe and complex. Obesity thus presents a parallel with the needs of the 1970s when the growing elderly population (with its own risks, diseases and special considerations of old age) generated the medical specialty of geriatrics. The creation of a new specialty has already occurred within the field of laparoscopic surgery where the bariatric or even metabolic surgeon is now a recognized training track and career for many. Unfortunately, the fields of primary care and internal medicine have moved more slowly, perhaps because there is both a dearth of effective medical interventions for the obese, and also a lack of recognition of patients' medical problems. The severity of obesity has long been defined in terms of body mass index (BMI). While always recognized as a crude tool, even when, as it now often is, refined by other anthropometric measures such as waist circumference, it poorly describes the individual obesity phenotype. Individuals with a BMI as low as 28 may have metabolic syndrome and established type 2 diabetes, while others, despite a BMI of 60 may be free of metabolic complications. The reasons behind these varying phenotypes remain unclear, but dependence upon BMI ill serves the clinical management of obesity and its associated diseases. Many obesity guidelines are based upon anthropometric criteria and thereby miss guiding the clinician and patient to appropriate care. A landmark paper by Sharma and Kushner in 2009 pointed out the limitations of anthropometric classification of obesity stating that BMI ‘. . . neither tells us whether or not a given patient has relevant risk factors, co-morbidities or impairments in quality of life nor whether . . . the patient's health would indeed improve with obesity treatment’(1). For example, a patient with a BMI of 30 kg m−2 who has type 2 diabetes, hypertension and reduced quality of life will generally require more aggressive treatment than a patient with the same BMI who has no concurrent medical problems, yet both patients by BMI ‘only’ have class I obesity and would meet the current guideline criteria for provision of lifestyle modification and possible consideration for pharmacotherapy. Sharma and Kushner went on to propose adding a staging according to the functional status of the individual, akin to cancer staging (which relates the size of the tumour and its spread). This has now been formalized as the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (2). In the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, stage 0 represents individuals with no obesity-related risk factors, physical or psychological symptoms or functional limitations, and moves through stages where these factors are mild, moderate, significant, up to severe (stage 4). An alternative way of phenotyping the obese individual was proposed by Aylwin and Al-Zaman (3) and has since been further developed by the obesity groups at Kings College Hospital and Imperial College London. This assigns a ‘severity score’ of 0, 1 or 2 to a number of criteria based alphabetically on the airway (obstructive sleep apnoea), BMI, cardiovascular risk, diabetes, economic consequences (unemployment, need for social care), functional status, and so on. Neither system has ‘official recognition’ but they, and the need for obesity specialists, point to the way in which the status of obesity needs to be raised, to that of a disease worthy of serious people treating the disease seriously. It is in this context that Clinical Obesity aims to foster the dissemination of clinical translational research to strengthen the scientific understanding of obesity as a disease, and the evidence base for rational obesity management. The journal will aim to publish papers of true translational research – i.e. how fundamental knowledge of the genetics, cell biology and physiology can be, or have been, applied to a better understanding of the complexities of obesity as a disease, and risk for disease, or to treatment and clinical care. Review articles of clinical importance will be welcome, and we hope to provide an international perspective wherever possible. We will not aim to publish papers on animal-based research, or basic studies in molecular biology, physiology or biochemistry that may better be placed in IASO's affiliated journal, the International Journal of Obesity. The acid test will be whether papers help to change understanding and practice of clinicians (including non-medical professionals) treating obesity and its related diseases. Success may be measured in terms of a move from regarding obesity merely as an excess BMI to a complex but fascinating area of medicine and clinical endeavour. I look forward to a successful launch and growth of the journal, and to a decline in the health burden of the disease and diseases of obesity.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,025
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,155
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,162
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0250,155
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,009
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0130,025
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,434
Écart entre enseignants0,361 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical ObesityMême sujetBariatric Surgery and OutcomesTravaux en français237 207