Association between weight‐loss history and weight loss achieved in clinical obesity management: Retrospective chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Weight history and its association with the weight loss achieved in a publicly funded clinical obesity management program were examined in 9348 patients. METHODS: Weight history (frequency and magnitude of weight losses) was collected through questionnaires at enrollment, and weight change was assessed with retrospective electronic medical chart review. RESULTS: The majority of patients reported developing overweight prior to the age of 40 years and having lost at least 4.5 kg (10 lb) of weight at least once in their lifetime. Those who had an earlier onset of overweight had a higher frequency of past weight loss and had more cumulative weight loss over their lifetime. In women, but not men, earlier age of overweight onset and lifetime weight loss were associated with modestly greater weight loss at the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Women with greater weight-loss history also have modestly greater weight loss at the obesity management clinic. Thus, successful long-term obesity management, particularly for women, may include a series of repeated attempts at weight loss that should not be viewed as failures but could be viewed instead as practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".