Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the review is to update the reader on the long anticipated Obesity 2, the second iteration of 'Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: the Evidence Report'. RECENT FINDINGS: Obesity 2 maintains a focus on primary care practitioners and their patients in an effort to reduce cardiovascular risk. Just as Obesity 1 limited the literature review to the years 1980-1997, Obesity 2 limits the literature under consideration from 1999 to 2011. However, because of the painstaking methodology employed, the scope of the Obesity 2 is of necessity more limited with five critical questions. These deal with risks of overweight and obesity, benefits of weight loss and evaluate three treatment areas - diet, behavioral therapies and surgical therapies. The critical questions inform recommendations in these same areas. SUMMARY: Although not comprehensive in scope, the guidance offered in Obesity 2 is backed by stringent approaches to limit bias and assuring rigor, thus producing recommendations one can trust in the areas covered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".