Edmonton Obesity Staging System for Pediatrics, Quality of Life, Fitness, Adherence to Exercise in Adolescents with Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Edmonton Obesity Staging System-pediatrics (EOSS-p) is based on the EOSS for adults, which has shown better predictive value for mortality than BMI. To our knowledge, no study has examined the EOSS-p in relation to health and wellbeing outcomes in a pediatric sample with obesity. The purpose of this study was to compare the associations of EOSS-p and BMI percentile with quality of life (QOL), cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), muscular strength, and adherence to an exercise intervention in adolescents with obesity. \nMethods: Participants were enrolled in the Healthy Eating Aerobics Resistance Training in Youth trial (N= 299). QOL, CRF (peak oxygen uptake, VO2peak) and muscular strength were assessed by the Pediatric QOL Inventory (PedsQL), indirect calorimetry during a maximal treadmill test, and 8-RM bench and leg press tests respectively. QOL, CRF, and muscular strength were assessed at baseline and 6-months after the intervention. Adherence was determined as a percentage of attended exercise sessions. Participants were staged from 0 to 3 (absent to severe health risk) according to EOSS-p. The association of EOSS-p and BMI percentile with outcomes were assessed using general linear models adjusting for age and sex. \nResults: Baseline QOL decreased with increasing EOSS-p stages (p<0.001). QOL was 75.7 +/- 11.4 in stage 0/1, 69.1 +/- 13.1 in stage 2, and 55.4 +/- 13.0 in stage 3. Stage 3 showed smaller improvements with 6-month CRF than stage 0/1 and 2 (p=0.001, B=-3.882 mlO2/kg/min). BMI percentile was associated with baseline VO2peak (p<0.001, B=-1.044 mlO2/kg/min), bench press (p=0.029, B=0.832 kg) and leg press (p=0.003, B=3.992 kg). Similar associations were observed between BMI percentile and 6-month outcomes. \nConclusion: As EOSS-p stages increase, QOL decreases. EOSS-p stage 3 had lower 6-month CRF, which suggests stage 3 may require a longer, more intensive or different intervention to achieve similar CRF improvements. BMI percentile showed contradicting health associations with cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".