Prediction modelling of 1-year outcomes to a personalized lifestyle intervention for Canadians with metabolic syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) comprises a cluster of risk factors that includes central obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and impaired glucose homeostasis. Although lifestyle interventions reduce MetS risk, not everyone responds to the same extent. The primary objective of this study was to identify variables that could predict 1-year changes in MetS risk in individuals participating in the Canadian Health Advanced by Nutrition and Graded Exercise (CHANGE) program. Participants were allocated into training (n = 157) and test (n = 29) datasets by availability of genetic data. A linear mixed-effect model revealed that age, medication, fasting glucose, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, and fibre intake were associated with continuous MetS (cMetS) score across all time points. Multiple linear regressions were then used to build 2 prediction models using 1-year cMetS score as the outcome variable. Model 1 included only baseline variables and was 38% accurate for predicting cMetS score. Model 2 included both baseline variables and the 3-month change in cMetS score and was 86% accurate. As a secondary objective, we also examined if we could build a model to predict a person’s categorical response bin (i.e., positive responder, nonresponder, or adverse responder) at 1 year using the same variables. We found 72% concordance between predicted and observed outcomes. These various prediction models need to be further tested in independent cohorts but provide a potentially promising new tool to project patient outcomes during lifestyle interventions for MetS. Novelty Short-term changes in cMetS score improve prediction model performance compared with only baseline variables. Predictive models could potentially facilitate clinical decision-making for personalized treatment plans.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".