Comparing the impact of in-person vs. virtual 10-week family-based childhood obesity management program on anthropometric, cardiometabolic, and mental health outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To compare differences in patient outcomes in individuals living with overweight and obesity who attended a 10-week multidisciplinary program delivered virtually vs. participants who completed the program in-person. Methods Data from 27 youth (8–18 years old) who attended virtual programming were matched by sex and body mass index (BMI) z-scores to youth who completed in-person programming. Changes in anthropometric, biomarkers (glucose, lipids and liver enzymes) and mental health (Beck Youth Inventories, Second Edition; “BYI-2”) were compared across groups. Results BMI z-scores did not differ between groups ( p = 0.88). Cardiometabolic measurements showed no significant differences at 10-weeks for any parameter, and there were no significant differences in BYI-2T-scores across groups ( p > 0.05). Conclusion The mode of delivery of a pediatric multidisciplinary family-based program was not associated with significant differences in participant outcomes, suggesting that both modes of delivery are effective.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".