A pilot study evaluating the clinically managed weight loss program at the Wellness Institute at Seven Oaks General Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Obesity is a worldwide problem. With the prevalence of obesity increasing, many weight loss programs have been created to aid in the epidemic. Based on the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for obesity management, a weight loss program should involve nutrition, exercise, and psychological components. The Wellness Institute (WI) is a non-profit organization that operates as a medical fitness facility and created the Weight Loss Clinic (WLC) to provide personalized support for individuals based on diet, exercise, and lifestyle, targeting all the core components required for a weight loss program. Since the weight loss industry is dominated by non-evidence-based programs with majority focused on calorie-reduced diets, there is a gap in research on weight loss programs with an exercise and psychological component. Thus, the aim of this pilot study is to collect data on the effectiveness of the comprehensive evidence-based clinically managed weight loss program offered at the WI for future research applications. Materials and Methods : The WLC is a 17-week program during which each participant will progress depending on their personal goals. Population: Inclusion criteria are individuals over the age of 18 years old, are overweight or obese (BMI > 25 kg/m 2 ), have been told by a physician or primary care provider to lose weight, who are concerned with weight and may have other health problems, and have tried to lose weight in the past but have been unsuccessful at maintaining weight loss. Outcome Measures: Outcome measures include: anthropometric measurements, body composition, cardiovascular assessment, clinical chemistry, physical activity assessment, nutrition assessment, behaviour change assessment, and health screenings. Ethics Approval: This evaluation received approval from the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board (Ethics # HS22267 (H2018:401)). Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT04290910
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 | 0.139 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.015 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".