Effectiveness of a Community‐Based Weight Management Program for Patients Taking Antidepressants and/or Antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare weight loss (WL) outcomes for patients taking antidepressants and/or antipsychotics with those not taking psychiatric medication. METHODS: A total of 17,519 adults enrolled in a lifestyle WL intervention at the Wharton Medical Clinics in Ontario, Canada, were analyzed. Sex-stratified multivariable linear regression analysis was used to examine the association of taking antidepressants, antipsychotics, both, or neither with WL when adjusting for age, initial weight, and treatment time. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent of patients were taking at least one psychiatric medication. Patients lost a significant amount of weight (P < 0.0001) regardless of psychiatric medication use. Women taking psychiatric medications lost a similar amount of weight as women who were not (P > 0.05). Conversely, men taking antidepressants lost only slightly less weight than men taking both classes or neither class of psychiatric medication (3.2 ± 0.3 kg vs. 5.6 ± 0.9 kg and 4.3 ± 0.1 kg; P < 0.05). However, taking psychiatric medications that cause weight gain was associated with similar significant decreases in weight as taking medications that are weight neutral or associated with WL for both sexes (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that those who participate in a weight management program can lose significant amounts of weight regardless of psychiatric medication use.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".