Review: little evidence supports the efficacy of major commercial and organised self help weight loss programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tsai AG, Wadden TA. Systematic review: an evaluation of major commercial weight loss programs in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:56–66.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the efficacy of major commercial or organised self help weight loss programmes that provide structured in-person or online counselling? ### ![Graphic][5] Data sources: Medline (1966 to October 1, 2003), bibliographies of relevant studies, and the publication lists of 2 companies. ### ![Graphic][6] Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective case series of major commercial or organised self help weight loss programmes in the US that provided regular in-person or online counselling for ⩾12 weeks, included only adults, reported number of trial participants, assessed ⩾10 participants, evaluated the programme under the same conditions in which it was offered to the public, and had ⩾1 year of follow up after treatment. Exclusion criteria were studies of self help weight loss approaches based on books, meal replacement plans, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnnals%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DANN%2BINTERN%2BMED%26rft.aulast%253DTsai%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%2BG.%26rft.volume%253D142%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D56%26rft.epage%253D66%26rft.atitle%253DSystematic%2BReview%253A%2BAn%2BEvaluation%2Bof%2BMajor%2BCommercial%2BWeight%2BLoss%2BPrograms%2Bin%2Bthe%2BUnited%2BStates%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252F0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00012%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15630109%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00012&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15630109&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F3%2F77.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000228366200006&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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 | 0.030 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".