The effect of weight loss on health‐related quality of life: systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of weight loss on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in randomized controlled intervention trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, HealthStar and PsycINFO were searched. RCTs of any weight loss intervention and 20 HRQL instruments were examined. Contingency tables were constructed to examine the association between statistically significant weight loss and statistically significant HRQL improvement within five HRQL categories. In addition, Short Form-36 (SF-36) outcomes were pooled using random-effects models. Fifty-three trials were included. Seventeen studies reported statistically significant weight loss and HRQL improvement. No statistically significant associations between weight loss and HRQL improvement were found in any contingency table. Because of suboptimal endpoint reporting, quantitative data pooling could only be performed using 25% of SF-36 trials in any one model. Significant improvements in physical health were found: mean difference 2.83 points, 95% CI 0.55-5.1, for the physical component score, and mean difference 6.81 points, 95% CI 2.99-10.63, for the physical functioning domain score. Conversely, no significant improvements in mental health were found. No significant association was found between weight loss and overall HRQL improvement. Weight loss may be associated with modest improvements in physical, but not mental, health.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.139 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.133 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it