Abstract MP003: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model of Weight Loss Maintenance or Regain at 4 Years in the Look AHEAD Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The development of type 2 diabetes is strongly associated with excess weight gain and can often be partially ameliorated or reversed by weight loss. While many lifestyle interventions have resulted in successful weight loss, strategies to maintain the weight loss have been considerably less successful. Prior studies have identified multiple predictors of weight regain, but none have synthesized them into one analytic stream. Methods: We developed a prediction model of 4-year weight regain after a one-year lifestyle-induced weight loss intervention followed by a 3 year maintenance intervention in 1791 overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes from the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial who lost ≥3% of initial weight by the end of year 1. Weight regain was defined as regaining <50% of the weight lost during the intervention by year 4. Using machine learning we integrated factors from several domains, including demographics, psychosocial metrics, health status and behaviors (e.g. physical activity, self-monitoring, medication use and intervention adherence). We used classification trees and stochastic gradient boosting with 10-fold cross validation to develop and internally validate the prediction model. Results: At the end of four years, 928 individuals maintained ≥50% of their initial weight lost (maintainers), whereas 863 did not met that criterion (regainers). We identified an interaction between age and several variables in the model, as well as percent initial weight loss. Several factors were significant predictors of weight regain based on variable importance plots, regardless of age or initial weight loss, such as insurance status, physical function score, baseline BMI, meal replacement use and minutes of exercise recorded during year 1. We also identified several factors that were significant predictors depending on age group (45-55y/ 56-65y/66-76y) and initial weight loss (lost 3-9% vs. ≥10% of initial weight). When the variables identified from machine learning were added to a logistic regression model stratified by age and initial weight loss groups, the models showed good prediction (3-9% initial weight loss, ages 45-55y (n=293): ROC AUC=0.78; ≥10% initial weight loss, ages 45-55y (n=242): ROC AUC=0.78; (3-9% initial weight loss, ages 56-65y (n=484): ROC AUC=0.70; ≥10% initial weight loss, ages 56-65y (n=455): ROC AUC = 0.74; 3-9% initial weight loss, ages 66-76y (n=150): ROC AUC=0.84; ≥10% initial weight loss, ages 66-76y (n=167): ROC AUC=0.86). Conclusion: The combination of machine learning methodology and logistic regression generates a prediction model that can consider numerous factors simultaneously, can be used to predict weight regain in other populations and can assist in the development of better strategies to prevent post-loss regain.
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".