Indicator for Success of Obesity Reduction Programs in Adolescents: Body Composition or Body Mass Index? Evaluating a School-based Health Promotion Project after 12 Weeks of Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity in adolescence is the strongest risk factor for obesity in adulthood. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a comprehensive lifestyle intervention on different anthropometric indices in 12-16-year-old boy adolescents after 12 Weeks of Intervention. METHODS: A total of 96 male adolescents from two schools participated in this study. The schools were randomly assigned to intervention (53 students) and control school (43 students). Height and weight of students were measured and their body mass index (BMI) was calculated. Body fat percent (BF) and body muscle percent (BM) was assessed using a bioimpedance analyzer considering the age, gender, and height of students at baseline and after intervention. The obesity reduction intervention was implemented in the intervention school based on the Ottawa charter for health promotion. RESULTS: < 0.01). However, weight, BMI, and BM did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The result of this study showed that a comprehensive lifestyle intervention decreased the body fat percent in obese adolescents, although these changes was not reflected in the BMI. It is possible that BMI is not a good indicator in assessment of the success of obesity management intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".