Early weight loss and outcome at one year in obese adolescents treated with orlistat or placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy, associated with a comprehensive weight loss intervention, has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach in adolescents. Identification of subjects who best respond to a pharmacological intervention remains difficult. OBJECTIVE: To compare the value of early weight loss after 12 weeks of treatment with placebo or orlistat (120 mg three times a day) in predicting treatment outcome after 52 weeks. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a randomized control trial in 182 placebo-treated and 357 orlistat-treated obese adolescents (Body mass index [BMI] ≥ 2 kg/m(2) above the 95(th) percentile). RESULTS: Percent weight change at 12 weeks was positively correlated with percent change in weight (r(2) ≥ 0.41), BMI (r(2) ≥ 0.33) and waist circumference (r(2) ≥ 0.20) at 52 weeks in both the placebo and orlistat groups (P < 0.001). A weight loss ≥ 5% of baseline weight at 12 weeks was associated with a mean weight loss of 8.1% (95% CI: 6.4 to 9.7) at the study end that was independent of treatment. Subjects in the orlistat group were 2.44 times (95% CI: 1.34 to 4.46) more likely to experience a weight loss ≥ 5% after 12 weeks than subjects in the placebo group (P = 0.0028). CONCLUSIONS: Early weight loss predicts a favourable outcome in both placebo-treated and orlistat-treated subjects but is more than 2 times more likely to occur in the orlistat group. Addition of orlistat should be considered as part of a weight loss intervention but reevaluated after 3 months of treatment.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".