An analysis of weight loss efforts and expectations in a Canadian Cohort: A retrospective medical chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The weight loss history and weight loss goals were examined in 4108 patients referred to a publicly funded evidence‐based clinical weight management program using a retrospective chart review. The majority of patients were white females, aged of 50.1 ± 13.7 years and a BMI of 39.0 ± 7.5 kg/m 2 . Pregnancy was the most common reason for weight gain in women (17.7%) and while the reasons in men are more varied (injury, stress and medication: all ~5%). Over 50% of patients cited no specific reason for their weight gain. Self‐directed diet and exercise were the most commonly used self‐reported weight loss methods. Women were more likely to report using medication and bariatric surgical weight loss methods than men ( P < .05), and only 5% of women and 12.8% men report never having tried to lose weight in the past. Patients had an ideal weight loss goal of 28.9% to 34.4%, which was similar to the patient's lowest reported adult weight. Approximately 70% of patients enrolling at the clinic had previously lost at least 4.5 kg (10 lb) one or more times and 16.7% lost weight at least 5 times in their life, but patient weight at enrolment was similar to their highest adult reported weight. Thus, most patients referred to this clinical weight management program have previously attempted self‐directed diet and exercise weight loss. Patients were close to their highest adult weight and had very large weight loss goals, similar to what is typically achieved only by surgical intervention, despite having already had several bouts of weight loss.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".