Obesity prevention in corticosteroid‐treated patients: Use and effectiveness of strategies for weight management
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review to identify the use and effectiveness of clinical interventions to prevent or mitigate weight gain in patients using systemic corticosteroids. We independently searched nine bibliometric databases for reviews and longitudinal studies published up to 26 October 2018, and assessed the quality of studies meeting inclusion criteria. We identified 3893 records and screened 3037 eligible studies, read four full-texts and extracted data from three randomized control trials. Two studies examined a diet-only intervention for weight management, while one study examined a mixed intervention for diet and exercise. Overall, existing evidence is of poor quality and based on small feasibility studies of either paediatric leukaemia or female lupus patients, which suggested divergent effects of lifestyle interventions on weight, body mass index or waist circumference. Current evidence suggests a state of clinical equipoise that deserves greater research attention given the prevalent use of corticosteroids for treating a variety of chronic conditions. Robust high-quality longitudinal studies to decipher preventive strategies of steroid-induced weight gain must be prioritized in research and policy to improve patient care and prevent further obesity-related disease burden.
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 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it