MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969948196 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000001693

Direct and Indirect Cost of Obesity Among the Privately Insured in the United States

2019· article· en· W2969948196 on OpenAlexaff
Abhilasha Ramasamy, François Laliberté, Shoghag A. Aktavoukian, Dominique Lejeune, Maral DerSarkissian, Cristi Cavanaugh, B. Gabriel Smolarz, Rahul Ganguly, Mei Sheng Duh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObesityBody mass indexMedicineOddsPercentileAbsenteeismIndirect costsDemographyOdds ratioEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionBusinessInternal medicineStatisticsMathematicsEconomicsAccountingManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate obesity-related costs and body mass index (BMI) as a cost predictor among privately insured employees by industry. METHODS: Individuals with/without obesity were identified using the Optum Health Reporting and Insights employer claims database (January, 2010 to March, 2017). Direct/indirect costs were reported per-patient-per-year (PPPY). Multivariate models were used to estimate the association between obesity and high costs (more than or equal to 80th percentile) by industry. RESULTS: Overall (N = 86,221), direct and absenteeism/disability cost differences between class I obesity (BMI 30.0 to 34.9) and reference were $1,775 and $617 PPPY, respectively (P < 0.05). Among employees with obesity (BMI more than or equal to 30), highest total costs were observed in the government/education/religious services, food/entertainment services, and technology industries. Class I obesity increased the odds of high costs (more than or equal to 80th percentile) within each industry (odds ratios vs reference = 1.09-5.17). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity (BMI more than or equal to 30) was associated with high costs among employees of major US industries.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207