Treatment of childhood and adolescent obesity: An integrative review of recent recommendations from five expert groups.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast 5 sets of expert recommendations about the treatment of childhood and adolescent obesity. METHOD: We reviewed 5 sets of recent expert recommendations: 2007 health care organizations' four stage model, 2007 Canadian clinical practice guidelines, 2008 Endocrine Society recommendations, 2009 seven step model, and 2010 U.S. Preventive Task Force recommendations. We described an empirically based sequential model by which expert recommendations may affect weight loss outcomes and then examined the recommendations pertaining to 4 treatments (self-help groups, outpatient cognitive behavior therapy [CBT], immersion CBT, and surgery). RESULTS: All of the expert committees supported using intensive dietary, physical activity, and cognitive-behavioral counseling; 2 of the 5 groups discouraged reliance on educational interventions alone; and 2 of the groups advised referring clients to increasingly intensive interventions, a stepped-care approach. CONCLUSIONS: Expert recommendations that include clear, simple, goal-oriented directions may impact the behaviors of health care providers most effectively and, in turn, help decrease childhood and adolescent obesity. Greatest benefits may accrue by encouraging health care providers and parents to view medical management and education as foundations to change but to pursue increasingly intensive viable options until overweight and obese children make clinically significant progress toward improved health and happiness.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".