Economic Evaluation of Weight Loss Interventions in Overweight and Obese Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a clinical and economic evaluation of outpatient weight loss strategies in overweight and obese adult U.S. women. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This study was a lifetime cost-use analysis from a societal perspective, using a first-order Monte Carlo simulation. Strategies included routine primary care and varying combinations of diet, exercise, behavior modification, and/or pharmacotherapy. Primary data were collected to assess program costs and obesity-related quality of life. Other data were obtained from clinical trials, population-based surveys, and other published literature. This was a simulated cohort of healthy 35-year-old overweight and obese women in the United States. RESULTS: For overweight and obese women, a three-component intervention of diet, exercise, and behavior modification cost 12,600 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained compared with routine care. All other strategies were either less effective and more costly or less effective and less cost-effective compared with the next best alternative. Results were most influenced by obesity-related effects on quality of life and the probabilities of weight loss maintenance. DISCUSSION: A multidisciplinary weight loss program consisting of diet, exercise, and behavior modification provides good value for money, but more research is required to confirm the impacts of such programs on quality of life and the likelihood of long-term weight loss maintenance.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".