Who are the obese? A cluster analysis exploring subgroups of the obese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) can be used to group individuals in terms of their height and weight as obese. However, such a distinction fails to account for the variation within this group across other factors such as health, demographic and behavioural characteristics. The study aims to examine the existence of subgroups of obese individuals. METHODS: Data were taken from the Yorkshire Health Study (2010-12) including information on demographic, health and behavioural characteristics. Individuals with a BMI of ≥30 were included. A two-step cluster analysis was used to define groups of individuals who shared common characteristics. RESULTS: The cluster analysis found six distinct groups of individuals whose BMI was ≥30. These subgroups were heavy drinking males, young healthy females; the affluent and healthy elderly; the physically sick but happy elderly; the unhappy and anxious middle aged and a cluster with the poorest health. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to account for the important heterogeneity within individuals who are obese. Interventions introduced by clinicians and policymakers should not target obese individuals as a whole but tailor strategies depending upon the subgroups that individuals belong to.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".