MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393195657 · doi:10.1111/obr.13734

Role of telemedicine in the management of obesity: State‐of‐the‐art review

2024· review· en· W4393195657 on OpenAlexaff
Kainat Shariq, Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Harriette G.C. Van Spall, Stephen J. Greene, Marat Fudim, Adam D. DeVore, Ambarish Pandey, Javed Butler, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicinePsychological interventionTelehealthMedicineDigital healthModalitiesHealth careObesityCoachingPandemicSAFERManagement of obesityWearable computerPopularityInternet privacyMedical emergencyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingComputer sciencePsychologyComputer securityWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity is a worsening public health epidemic that remains challenging to manage. Obesity substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and presents a significant financial burden on the healthcare system. Digital health interventions, specifically telemedicine, may offer an attractive and viable solution for managing obesity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for a safer alternative to in-person visits led to the increased popularity of telemedicine. Multiple studies have tested the efficacy of telemedicine modalities, including digital coaching via videoconferencing sessions, e-health monitoring using wearable devices, and asynchronous forms of communication such as online chatrooms with counselors. In this review, we discuss the available evidence for telemedicine interventions in managing obesity, review current challenges and barriers to using telemedicine, and outline future directions to optimize the management of patients with obesity using telemedicine.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207