Abstract P296: Dietary Habits in Primary Care Patients with Recent Intentional Weight Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to provide counselling for weight loss, yet lifestyle habits of primary care patients with recent, intentional weight loss are unclear. Our objective was to characterize diet and exercise habits in primary care patients with recent, intentional weight loss, comparing those with greater (≥10%) to those with lesser (5 to <10%) weight loss. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a weight loss maintenance clinical trial in a primary care setting included patients,18-75 years old, with ≥5% intentional weight loss via lifestyle change in the past 2 years. Recent weight loss was confirmed with medical records. Dietary habits were measured by the Connor Diet Habits Survey. Results: Participants (n=192, 74% female, 87% white) had mean (SD) age 53 (12) years, body mass index 30.4 (5.9) kg/m 2 , and recent weight loss of 11 (8) %. Participants had a high burden of comorbidities: high blood pressure (50%), dyslipidemia (43%), diabetes (14%), and cardiovascular disease (10%). Participants reported high median intake of fruits and vegetables (5 servings/day), and low intake of fried foods (1 servings/wk), desserts (1 serving/wk) and sugar-sweetened beverages (0 serving/wk) (see Table) . Participants ate at restaurants on average twice/wk and most drank skim milk. Those with greater weight loss had higher intakes of fruits and vegetables (p=0.04) and low fat foods/recipes (p=0.02); other dietary habits were not related to amount of recent weight loss (see Table ). Conclusions: Despite the plethora of studies that support and refute a variety of dietary recommendations to promote weight loss, dietary habits in primary care patients with a high burden of comorbidities and recent, intentional weight loss were consistent with conventional wisdom including: more fruits and vegetables, limited added sugars, and more low fat foods and recipes. Future research should test the effects of this eating pattern in a primary care setting for weight loss and maintenance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".