MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572485915 · doi:10.1002/oby.20821

Executive summary: Guidelines (2013) for the management of overweight and obesity in adults

2014· review· en· W1572485915 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael D. Jensen, Donna H. Ryan, Karen A. Donato, Caroline M. Apovian, Jamy D. Ard, Anthony G. Comuzzie, Frank B. Hu, Van S. Hubbard, John M. Jakicic, Robert F. Kushner, Catherine M. Loria, Barbara E. Millen, Cathy Nonas, F. Xavier Pi‐Sunyer, June Stevens, Victor J. Stevens, Thomas A. Wadden, Bruce M. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionZafgenAmerican Heart AssociationCovis PharmaNovo NordiskMassachusetts General HospitalPfizerUniversité LavalBrown UniversityBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaEisaiUSGI Medical
KeywordsOverweightExecutive summaryMedicineObesityWeight managementMEDLINEInternal medicineBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most cases, the strength of the recommendation should be closely aligned with the quality of the evidence; however, under some circumstances, there may be valid reasons for making recommendations that are not closely aligned with the quality of the evidence (e.g., strong recommendation when the evidence quality is moderate, such as smoking cessation to reduce CVD risk or ordering an ECG as part of the initial diagnostic work-up for a patient presenting with possible MI). Those situations should be limited and the rationale explained clearly by the Work Group. b Net benefit is defined as benefits minus risks/harms of the service/intervention. CVD indicates cardiovascular disease; ECG, electrocardiogram; MI,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations333
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesitySame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207