Family Medicine's Strategies for Geriatric Obesity and Its Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fastest-growing demographic category, older persons, currently has increasing obesity rates, raising concerns about public health. For older persons, a vitally relevant outcome is obesity in later life, which increases the likelihood of reduced physical function, significantly affecting daily life. Patients who are obese and disabled often experience impaired mobility, muscle weakness, and an increased risk of falling. Moreover, sarcopenia and obesity are linked to a lower quality of life and higher mortality among the elderly. There are various approaches used in family medicine practice to lay the groundwork for the development of an organised clinical pathway for the primary care management of overweight and obesity. It is advised to implement a multifaceted, all-encompassing lifestyle strategy that includes calorie restriction, increased physical activity, and interventions to assist behaviour change for a minimum of six to twelve months. Long-term weight maintenance treatments are required after weight loss. Diet, exercise, self-management, and/or combination approaches with different therapy modalities, delivery methods, and dosages are the core emphasis of lifestyle interventions. Early diagnosis and prompt management are crucial for the prevention of complications in this vulnerable cohort; hence, family physicians being the first point of contact are critically important in this regard. Addressing geriatric obesity and its complications with family physicians is crucial for improving the health outcomes, quality of life, and overall well-being of older adults. Pharmacological therapies are also recommended when lifestyle modifications fail to achieve the desired outcome/goal. Through this review paper, we aim to analyze the existing literature regarding diverse strategies employed by family physicians in their practice for the management of geriatric obesity and its associated complications.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".