Body mass index and quality of life in a survey of primary care patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing and contributes to the burden of ill health in the community. The impact of obesity on health-related quality of life has been less well studied than how it affects physical morbidity and mortality. METHODS: A survey of health-related quality of life using the 12-item Short Form (SF-12) of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 was mailed to patients attending a family medicine clinic. Multiple regression analyses were used to investigate the relationships between scores on the mental and physical components of the SF-12 and body mass index (BMI) while controlling for age, sex, and family income. RESULTS: Responses were received from 565 subjects (53%). The relationships among BMI and quality of life in the mental and physical domains were nonlinear. Quality of life scores were optimal when BMI was in the range of 20 to 25 kg per m2. CONCLUSIONS: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute has published evidence-based clinical guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. Subjects with BMI in the range 18.5 to 24.9 kg per m2 are classified as having normal weight. These observations suggest that achieving a weight in this range will maximize the patient's subjective sense of well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".