MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relative changes in resting energy expenditure during weight loss: a systematic review

2009· review· en· W2108439170 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Schwartz, Éric Doucet

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEnergy expenditureResting energy expenditureWeight lossMedicineEnvironmental scienceEndocrinologyObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A more comprehensive understanding of the effects of weight loss on the changes in resting energy expenditure (EE) is relevant. A MEDLINE search was performed to identify studies with information relevant to this systematic review. From this search, the mean rate of resting EE decrease relative to weight loss was calculated from 90 available publications. A decrease of resting EE relative to weight loss of -15.4 +/- 8.7 kcal kg(-1) was observed from 2977 [corrected] subjects. No sex differences were noted in the overall resting EE decrease relative to weight loss. However, a significant sex differences was seen with pharmacological interventions, which seemed to depress the resting EE relative to weight loss to a greater extent in men than in women (P < 0.05). A greater drop in resting EE relative to weight loss was observed for short interventions (more than 2 but less than 6 weeks) when compared with long interventions (<6 weeks) (-27.7 +/- 6.7 vs. -12.8 +/- 7.1 kcal kg(-1)) (P < 0.001). Men and women have a similar decrease in resting EE relative to weight loss except in the case of pharmacological interventions. Short interventions also produced greater resting EE losses relative to weight loss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations126
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207