Effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Treatment Program for Severe Obesity in Adults Based on the Clinically Significant Weight Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity is a chronic and complex disease; by its nature, it represents an enormous challenge to be solved and managed. For that matter, several guidelines have been published, but there is still a long way to go until concrete scaled results can be presented. Adults with obesity, and especially severe obesity, need to have access to treatment programs, but they are not available for the vast majority of the population. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment program for obesity (MTPO) offered to adults (ages 18 to 50 years old) with a BMI over 30 kg/m2. Methods: Participants were invited through media ads, resulting in 404 participants for the first phase of that study, from whom the risk profile was assessed. After that, 180 participants (82.8% with severe obesity) concluded the MTPO, which consisted of 48 sessions of exercises and the same number of professional orientations about a healthy lifestyle, including the importance of being physically active, how to improve their eating habits, and how to control their emotions. Results: For the analysis of results, participants were grouped according to their weight loss in terciles, with the first, tercile presenting an average weight loss of 7.6%, which is considered clinically significant. In the same way, the average percental variations were even higher in this group for body fat (12.7%) and the lean mass to fat mass ratio (LM/FM), which increased by 14.3%. The homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance, HOMA-IR, was around 3 times the variation of body mass, whereas the triglycerides (TG) and the hemoglobin A1C (H1Ac) were around twice that rate. Conclusions: These results made clear the effectiveness of the MTPO, which needs to be tested in public health services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".