MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225725382 · doi:10.12968/joan.2022.11.3.118

How the COVID-19 pandemic has affected obesity levels and how liraglutide may play a role in its control

2022· article· en· W4225725382 on OpenAlexaff
Gemma Fromage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aesthetic Nursing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDietary Effects on Health
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiraglutideMedicineObesityPandemicBody mass indexDyslipidemiaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Weight lossWeight managementType 2 diabetesGerontologyDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2020, the UK Government introduced formal social lockdown measures to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Both the lockdowns and the pandemic have had considerable social and health consequences beyond the direct death toll attributable to COVID-19. One of the secondary effects of COVID-19 and lockdown is increased levels of obesity. The most common and convenient measurement of obesity that is currently used is body mass index (BMI), with a BMI over 30 being classed as obese. Excess weight is one of the few modifiable factors for COVID-19 and, as such, achieving a healthier weight is crucial to keep the nation fit and well as we move forward. There are many ways in which weight may be controlled or managed, from exercise, diet and nutrition, to surgery to medication. Liraglutide is the drug that is commonly known as Saxenda®. It may be prescribed for individuals with a BMI of 30kg/m2 or more or those with a BMI of 27kg/m2 who have another weight-related illness, such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes or dyslipidemia. It has a number of cautions and contraindications, and the side effects experienced are generally gastrointestinal-related. As with many weight management programmes, Saxenda works in conjunction with a reduced calorie diet and an increase in physical activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aesthetic NursingSame topicDietary Effects on HealthFrench-language works237,207