The Edmonton Obesity Staging System and pregnancy outcomes in women with overweight or obesity: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The Edmonton Obesity Staging System ( EOSS ) is a proposed clinical practice tool to determine obesity severity. In a secondary analysis of the Pregnancy Exercise and Research Study ( PEARS ) (a mobile‐health‐supported lifestyle intervention among pregnant women with body mass index [ BMI ] ≥25 kg/m 2 ), we apply the EOSS and explore relationships with pregnancy outcomes. In early (14–16 weeks) and late (28 weeks) pregnancy, fasting lipids and glucose were measured, blood pressure was extracted from medical records and maternal well‐being was assessed using the WHO ‐5 Well‐being Index. Pearson's correlations, chi‐square statistics and multiple logistic regression were used to identify relationships. One‐way analysis of variance was used to compare groups. Pregnant women ( n = 348) were mean ( SD ) age 32.44 (4.39) years and median (interquartile range) BMI 28.0 (26.57, 29.88) kg/m 2 . Using metabolic criteria only, 81.9% and 98.9% had raised EOSS scores in early and late pregnancy. From early to late pregnancy, EOSS scores increased by 60.1%. Of these, 10.5% experienced a 2‐point increase, moving from stage 0 to stage 2. There was a potential relationship between early EOSS and large for gestational age ( χ 2 = 6.42, df (2), p = .04), although significance was lost when controlled for confounders ( p = .223) and multiple testing. Most women with BMI ≥25 kg/m 2 had raised EOSS scores, limiting the clinical utility of the tool.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it