Usefulness of the Edmonton Obesity Staging System for stratifying the presence and severity of weight‐related health problems in clinical and community settings: A rapid review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This rapid review aimed to examine the usefulness of the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) for stratifying the presence and severity of weight-related health problems in clinical and community settings. We searched PubMed, CINAHL and ProQuest for records from 2009 to May 2020. We considered observational studies in participants with overweight or obesity that investigated the risk of any clinical outcome associated with increasing EOSS. We reviewed and appraised 20 observational studies (cohort = 4, case series = 7, cross-sectional = 9) published between 2011 and 2020. Of 12 studies in clinical populations, the EOSS was most consistently associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications following bariatric surgery, especially for EOSS 3-4, and inversely associated with weight loss, treatment time and resolution of hypertension following bariatric surgery and clinical weight management. Of eight studies in community populations, the EOSS most consistently predicted mortality outcomes, especially for EOSS 3, and was associated with polypharmacy, service use and poorer work outcomes. Studies reported diverse EOSS definitions and outcomes, which slightly weakens the overall evidence base. The EOSS should be routinely used for predicting risks and benefits of surgical and nonsurgical weight management, but it should be applied with caution for population health planning.
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 | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".