Cumulative Weight Exposure Is Associated with Different Weight Loss Strategies and Weight Loss Success in Adults Age 50 or Above
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To evaluate if cumulative weight exposure is associated with weight loss strategy choices and weight loss success. Methods. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were used; a total of 4,562 people age 50 years or older who reported trying to lose weight in the last year were studied. Cumulative weight exposure (CWE) score was defined as the sum of body mass index points above 25 kg/m(2) at the age of 25, 10 years ago, 1 year ago, and now. Weight loss strategies were self-reported and weight loss success was defined as reaching a 5% weight loss in the last year. Results. Chosen strategies for weight loss vary across tertiles of CWE. Participants in the highest CWE tertile were about 4 to 20 times more likely to lose at least 5% of body weight in the past year compared to those in the lowest CWE tertile (P < 0.05). Discussion. Strategies used to lose weight and weight loss success using different weight loss strategies vary considerably across cumulative weight exposure. Thus, cumulative weight exposure might be a variable worth considering when intervening with this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".