MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606592708 · doi:10.21037/atm.2017.03.107

Morbidity and mortality associated with obesity

2017· review· en· W2606592708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahmoud Abdelaal, Carel W. le Roux, Neil G. Docherty

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGöteborgs UniversitetVetenskapsrådetScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsObesityMedicineLife expectancyDiseaseGrading (engineering)Intensive care medicinePublic healthQuality of life (healthcare)Environmental healthGerontologyInternal medicinePopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity and its repercussions constitute an important source of morbidity, impaired quality of life and its complications can have a major bearing on life expectancy. The present article summarizes the most important co-morbidities of obesity and their prevalence. Furthermore, it describes classification and grading systems that can be used to assess the individual and combined impact of co-morbid conditions on mortality risk. The literature was screened for assessment tools that can be deployed in the quantification of morbidity and mortality risk in individual patients. Thirteen specific domains have been identified that account for morbidity and mortality in obesity. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer account for the greatest mortality risk associated with obesity. The King's Criteria and Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) were identified as useful tools for the detection and monitoring of individual patient mortality risk in obesity care. The stark facts on the complications of obesity should be capitalized on to improve patient management and knowledge and referred to in the wider dissemination of public health messages aimed at improving primary prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.664
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.038 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,048
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207