Adolescents with severe obesity: outcomes of participation in an intensive obesity management programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most interventions for childhood obesity are randomized controlled studies. Less is known about the effectiveness of clinical obesity programmes. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes in adolescents participating in the SickKids Team Obesity Management Program (STOMP) vs. a comparison group of obese adolescents. METHODS: Severely obese adolescents (n = 75) in STOMP (15.1 ± 1.8 years, body mass index [BMI] 44.8 ± 7.8 kg m(-2) ) were compared with adolescents (n = 41) not in the programme (14.9 ± 2.0 years, BMI 34.5 ± 8.0 kg m(-2) ). Outcomes were change in BMI, cardiometabolic, psychological and health behaviour measures. RESULTS: At 6 months, STOMP patients' BMI was unchanged (0.08 ± 0.3; P = 0.79) and they reported improvements in quality of life and depression (-3.6 ± 1.4; P = 0.009), and increases in measures of readiness to change (RTC). Between-group differences in change between 0 and 6 months, in favour of STOMP patients, were observed for homeostatic measurement assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; -2.7 ± 1.0; P = 0.007), depression scores (-3.5 ± 1.7; P = 0.04), diet-RTC (0.6 ± 0.2; P < 0.001) and physical activity (1.7 ± 0.9; P = 0.05). At 12 months, STOMP patients increased BMI (0.8 ± 0.5; P = 0.07), but they exhibited decreased waist circumference (-7.4 ± 2.1 cm; P = 0.001) and HOMA-IR (-1.9 ± 0.6; P = 0.002). Between-group differences in change between 0 and 12 months, in favour of STOMP patients, were observed for waist circumference (-5.9 ± 2.4 cm; P = 0.01), HOMA-IR (-2.9 ± 0.7; P < 0.001) and diet-RTC (0.9 ± 0.2; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: STOMP participants did not experience a significant reduction in BMI but did have improvements in cardiometabolic, psychological and health behaviour outcomes. Evaluation of paediatric clinical obesity programmes using multiple measures is essential to understanding real-world outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".