A novel algorithm for describing population level trends in body weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling population trends and predicting the impact of interventions to address obesity requires algorithms for predicting body weight status in the future. Predictions can be based on statistical consideration of different risk factors, or be an extrapolation of past and current trends. Despite the well known correlation between previous and future weight, individual weight history has not been used to predict future trends. We developed a novel population-level model to examine trends of different classes of body weight considering individual body weight histories from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79). A subset of data used to assess the predictive ability of our proposed model with actual data. Our results confirm the importance of weight history in determining future weight status. Over 80% of individuals in a specific weight category (normal, overweight, obese) will stay in the same weight category after two years (except overweight females). The length of body weight stability was also found to be important. The probability of remaining normal weight increased with longer prior periods of being at a normal weight over 18 years (0.834 to 0.893). We demonstrate that an individual’s most probable weight class in the future is consistent with their maximal historical weight class.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".