Weight Loss in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 15% of children and adolescents in Germany are overweight, including 6.3% who are affected by obesity. The efficacy of conservative weight-loss treatments has been demonstrated, but there has not yet been a detailed analysis of their efficacy in terms of the amount of weight loss that can be expected. We re-evaluated the available evidence on this question, with particular attention to the methodological quality of clinical trials, in order to derive information that might be a useful guide for treatment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of Medline for the period May 2008 (final inclusion date for a 2009 Cochrane Review) to December 2013. The identified studies were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: 48 randomized controlled clinical trials with a total of 5025 participants met the predefined inclusion criteria for this analysis. In the ones that met predefined criteria for methodological quality, conservative weight-loss treatments led to weight loss in amounts ranging from 0.05 to 0.42 BMI z score (standard deviation score of the body mass index) over a period of 12-24 months. Information on trial dropout rates was available for 41 of the 48 trials; the dropout rate was 10% or higher in 27 of these (66% ), and 25% or higher in 9 (22% ). CONCLUSION: The available evidence consistently shows that only a modest degree of weight loss can be expected from conservative treatment. Families seeking treatment should be informed of this fact. Future research should focus on determining predictive factors for therapeutic benefit, and on the evaluation of additional types of psychological intervention to promote coping with obesity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".