Interpretable Conditional Recurrent Neural Network for Weight Change Prediction: Algorithm Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, mobile-based interventions have received more attention as an alternative to on-site obesity management. Despite increased mobile interventions for obesity, there are lost opportunities to achieve better outcomes due to the lack of a predictive model using current existing longitudinal and cross-sectional health data. Noom (Noom Inc) is a mobile app that provides various lifestyle-related logs including food logging, exercise logging, and weight logging. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a weight change predictive model using an interpretable artificial intelligence algorithm for mobile-based interventions and to explore contributing factors to weight loss. METHODS: Lifelog mobile app (Noom) user data of individuals who used the weight loss program for 16 weeks in the United States were used to develop an interpretable recurrent neural network algorithm for weight prediction that considers both time-variant and time-fixed variables. From a total of 93,696 users in the coaching program, we excluded users who did not take part in the 16-week weight loss program or who were not overweight or obese or had not entered weight or meal records for the entire 16-week program. This interpretable model was trained and validated with 5-fold cross-validation (training set: 70%; testing: 30%) using the lifelog data. Mean absolute percentage error between actual weight loss and predicted weight was used to measure model performance. To better understand the behavior factors contributing to weight loss or gain, we calculated contribution coefficients in test sets. RESULTS: A total of 17,867 users' data were included in the analysis. The overall mean absolute percentage error of the model was 3.50%, and the error of the model declined from 3.78% to 3.45% by the end of the program. The time-level attention weighting was shown to be equally distributed at 0.0625 each week, but this gradually decreased (from 0.0626 to 0.0624) as it approached 16 weeks. Factors such as usage pattern, weight input frequency, meal input adherence, exercise, and sharp decreases in weight trajectories had negative contribution coefficients of -0.021, -0.032, -0.015, and -0.066, respectively. For time-fixed variables, being male had a contribution coefficient of -0.091. CONCLUSIONS: An interpretable algorithm, with both time-variant and time-fixed data, was used to precisely predict weight loss while preserving model transparency. This week-to-week prediction model is expected to improve weight loss and provide a global explanation of contributing factors, leading to better outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".