Development and internal validation of the Edmonton Obesity Staging System-2 Risk screening Tool (EOSS-2 Risk Tool) for weight-related health complications: a case-control study in a representative sample of Australian adults with overweight and obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Excess weight and related health complications remain under diagnosed and poorly treated in general practice. We aimed to develop and validate a brief screening tool for determining the presence of unknown clinically significant weight-related health complications for potential application in general practice. DESIGN: We considered 14 self-reported candidate predictors of clinically significant weight-related health complications according to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS score of ≥2) and developed models using multivariate logistic regression across training and test data sets. The final model was chosen based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic; and validated using sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from the Australian Health Survey 2011-2013 sample aged between 18 and 65 years (n=7518) with at least overweight and obesity. RESULTS: An EOSS≥2 classification was present in 78% of the sample. Of 14 candidate risk factors, 6 (family history of diabetes, hypertension, high sugar in blood/urine, high cholesterol and self-reported bodily pain and disability) were automatically included based on definitional or obvious correlational criteria. Three variables were retained in the final multivariate model (age, self-assessed health and history of depression/anxiety). The EOSS-2 Risk Tool (index test) classified 89% of those at 'extremely high risk' (≥25 points), 67% of those at 'very high risk' (7-24 points) and 42% of those at 'high risk' (<7 points) of meeting diagnostic criteria for EOSS≥2 (reference). CONCLUSION: The EOSS-2 Risk Tool is a simple, safe and accurate screening tool for diagnostic criteria for clinically significant weight-related complications for potential application in general practice. Research to determine the feasibility and applicability of the EOSS-2 Risk Tool for improving weight management approaches in general practice is warranted.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".