Using the Edmonton Obesity Staging System in the real world: a feasibility study based on cross-sectional data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) combined with body mass index (BMI) enables improved functional and prognostic assessment for patients. To facilitate application of the EOSS in practice, we aimed to create tools for capturing comorbidity assessments in electronic medical records and for automating the calculation of a patient's EOSS stage. METHODS: In this feasibility study, we used cross-sectional data to create a clinical dashboard to calculate and display the relation between BMI and EOSS and the prevalence of related comorbidities. We obtained data from the Northern Alberta Primary Care Research Network and the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN). We included patients at least 18 years of age with BMI between 30 and 60 who visited a network clinic between July 2016 and July 2019. We calculated descriptive statistics and used stepwise ordinary least squares regression to assess the contributions of age, sex and BMI to EOSS variation. RESULTS: We created a clinical dashboard using the CPCSSN data presentation tool. Of the total 31 496 patients included in the study, 23 460 had a BMI of at least 30; BMI was unavailable for 8036 patients. Within each EOSS disease severity stage, there were similar proportions of patients from each BMI class (e.g., patients with EOSS stage 2 included 51.8% of those with BMI class I, 55.3% of those with BMI class II and 58.8% of those with BMI class III). INTERPRETATION: Using data from primary care electronic medical records, it was feasible to create a clinical dashboard for obesity that highlighted the severity and stage of obesity. Making this information easily accessible for individual clinical care and practice-level quality improvement may advance obesity care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".