MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562305242 · doi:10.1002/osp4.98

Evaluation of a web‐based weight loss intervention in overweight cancer survivors aged 50 years and younger

2016· article· en· W2562305242 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Science & Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMD Precision (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight lossOverweightRetention rateAdverse effectPopulationPsychological interventionPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)CancerBreast cancerObesityGerontologyInternal medicinePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Purpose Half of adult cancer survivors under age 50 years are obese. Excess body weight is associated with cancer recurrence, and effective weight loss interventions for younger cancer survivors are needed. Commercially available, online weight loss programmes are readily accessible, but few have been studied in this population. This study employed a single‐arm, pre‐post intervention (baseline‐6 month/baseline‐12 month comparisons) to preliminarily explore feasibility, efficacy and safety of an online, commercially available weight loss programme in breast ( n = 30) and testicular ( n = 16) cancer survivors under age 50 years. Methods The intervention included three daily components: exercise, nutritional/behavioural modification strategies and health lessons. Intention‐to‐treat and completers analyses were conducted. Feasibility was measured by participation (number of participants enrolled/number screened), retention (number of participants attending 6/12 month study visit/number of enrolled) and self‐reported adherence rates (average of mean percent adherence to each of the three intervention components). Efficacy was assessed by changes in initial weight (percent weight loss). Safety was assessed by adverse events. Results The mean participation rate was 42%. The retention rate was 59% at 6 and 49% at 12 months. The adherence rate for all participants (completers/dropouts/lost‐to‐follow‐up) was 50.1% at 6 and 44% at 12 months. Completers reported adherence rates of 68% at 12 months. Study participants lost 5.3% body weight at 12 months; completers lost 9%. Only three unexpected adverse events (unrelated to the intervention) were reported. Conclusion Clinically significant weight loss was observed, although retention rates were low. Findings generally support preliminary feasibility, efficacy and safety of this online weight loss programme, and future randomized control trials should be explored.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it