The economic burden of obesity worldwide: a systematic review of the direct costs of obesity
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Systematic reviewConsensus signal: Systematic review
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.323
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
In the last decade, the prevalence of obesity has increased significantly in populations worldwide. A less dramatic, but equally important increase has been seen in our knowledge of its effects on health and the burden it places on healthcare systems. This systematic review aims to assess the current published literature on the direct costs associated with obesity. A computerized search of English language articles published between 1990 and June 2009 yielded 32 articles suitable for review. Based on these articles, obesity was estimated to account for between 0.7% and 2.8% of a country's total healthcare expenditures. Furthermore, obese individuals were found to have medical costs that were approximately 30% greater than their normal weight peers. Although variations in inclusion/exclusion criteria, reporting methods and included costs varied widely between the studies, a lack of examination of how and why the excess costs were being accrued appeared to be a commonality between most studies. Accordingly, future studies must better explore how costs accrue among obese populations, in order to best facilitate health and social policy interventions.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Obesity Reviews
- Topic
- Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- Toronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- ObesityIndirect costsPsychological interventionMedicineHealth careSystematic reviewEnvironmental healthEnglish languageMedical costsEconomic costGerontologyInclusion and exclusion criteriaInclusion (mineral)MEDLINEPublic economicsAlternative medicineBusinessPolitical sciencePsychologyEconomic growthEconomicsNursing
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes