Edmonton Obesity Staging System: association with weight history and mortality risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine whether the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS), a newly proposed tool using obesity-related comorbidities, can help identify obese individuals who are at greater mortality risk. Data from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study (n = 29 533) were used to assess mortality risk in obese individuals by EOSS stage (follow-up (SD), 16.2 (7.5) years). The effect of weight history and lifestyle factors on EOSS classification was explored. Obese participants were categorized, using a modified EOSS definition, as stages 0 to 3, based on the severity of their risk profile and conditions (stage 0, no risk factors or comorbidities; stage 1, mild conditions; and stages 2 and 3, moderate to severe conditions). Compared with normal-weight individuals, obese individuals in stage 2 or 3 had a greater risk of all-cause mortality (stage 2 hazards ratio (HR) (95% CI), 1.6 (1.3-2.0); stage 3 HR, 1.7 (1.4-2.0)) and cardiovascular-related mortality (stage 2 HR, 2.1 (1.6-2.8); stage 3 HR. 2.1 (1.6-2.8)). Stage 0/1 was not associated with higher mortality risk. Lower self-ascribed preferred weight, weight at age 21, cardiorespiratory fitness, reported dieting, and fruit and vegetable intake were each associated with an elevated risk for stage 2 or 3. Thus, EOSS offers clinicians a useful approach to identify obese individuals at elevated risk of mortality who may benefit from more attention to weight management. Further research is necessary to determine what EOSS factors are most predictive of mortality risk, and whether these findings can be generalized to other obese populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".