SAT-530 Differences In Perspectives Of Weight Management Among People In The US And Canada With T2D By BMI And Sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Disclosure: M. Ross: Eli Lilly & Company. S. Mulnick: Eli Lilly & Company. K. Boye: Eli Lilly & Company. A. Samuelson: Eli Lilly & Company. V. Thieu: Eli Lilly & Company. C. Longuet: Eli Lilly & Company. J. Glass: Eli Lilly & Company. M. Hoog: Eli Lilly & Company. Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) affects approximately 35 million Americans and three million Canadians. The link between T2D and obesity has been well established and guidelines for treating T2D include recommendations to support patients in healthy weight reduction. This study explored the perspectives of people residing in the US and Canada with T2D across BMI categories regarding the perceived value of reaching a lower weight and how this would impact their lives. Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional survey informed by qualitative interviews was administered in English to adults in the US and Canada with T2D. Enrollment ensured a sample representative of the T2D population by BMI according to US census data. The survey explored weight management experience, impacts of T2D and weight on quality of life (QOL), and perceived value of 5%, 10%, and 20% weight reductions. Participants defined their dream, achievable, acceptable, and unsuccessful body weights, standardized as a proportion of their reported current weight. Results were summarized descriptively. Chi-square tests and t-tests assessed for significant differences between BMI categories and by sex at birth (p<0.05). Results: The 746 participants (US=388, Canada=358) were 45% female, 43% retired, and 77% college-educated or higher. Mean (SD) BMI was 32.8 kg/m2 (8.2) and was higher among female participants (female=35.0 kg/m2 (9.4); male=31.0 kg/m2 (6.5); p<0.001). 41% had a BMI<30 kg/m2 and 13% had a BMI<25 kg/m2. The majority (70%) self-reported an HbA1c <7%. Nearly all (93%) felt weight management was important to managing their T2D, regardless of BMI. Most (66%) reported currently trying to lose weight and thinking about trying to lose weight at least multiple times each week over the last 2 years, especially those with higher BMIs (p<0.001). A higher BMI was also associated with more impacts of weight on T2D (emotional well-being, medical/health complications, physical/mobility limitations, sleep, daily activities, social and financial). Participants with higher BMIs desired greater weight reduction than those with lower BMIs when defining their dream, achievable, acceptable and unsuccessful weight goals and were more likely to expect a positive and meaningful impact on their life with 5%, 10%, and 20% weight reductions. Statistical differences between male and female sex at birth were also observed, as female participants reported more impacts of weight on T2D, struggling to lose weight, and desiring greater weight reduction than male participants. Conclusion: Participants with T2D positively valued weight reduction and anticipate it to lead to improvements in their overall T2D management and QOL. As the percentage of weight reduction increased, those with higher BMIs and female participants perceived greater meaningfulness and more positive impacts. Presentation: Saturday, July 12, 2025
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".