A family‐centered lifestyle intervention focused on milk and alternatives reduces adiposity in 6‐ to 8‐ year‐old overweight and obese children compared to control: results at 6 months from a RCT (808.24)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between adiposity and milk and alternative (milk and alt.) intakes in prepubescent children is unclear. This study assessed the impact of a family‐based lifestyle intervention on adiposity in overweight (n= 14) and obese (n=64) children (age 7.5 ± 0.78 y). Children were randomized to control (CTRL) [no intervention], standard (SInt) [2 milk and alt./d] or intensive (IInt) [4 milk and alt./d] interventions focused on meeting the Canadian food and activity guides. Measurements were height (Ht; m) and weight (Wt; kg) to compute body mass index for‐age‐ z‐scores (BAZ) using WHOAntroPlus Software (WHO 2007), waist circumference (WC; cm) and percentage body fat (%BF) assessed using dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry. Using mixed model ANOVAs, no differences were seen at baseline among groups for BAZ or %BF. At 6‐months, Ht increased compared to baseline (p=0.898) and was not different among groups. Compared to baseline, %BF (‐2.4±0.92%; p=0.0015) and BAZ (‐0.5±0.08; p<0.001) was reduced only in IInt whereas WC increased only in CTRL (+2.5±1.61 cm; p=0.007). These preliminary results demonstrate the short‐term benefits of participating in a lifestyle intervention focused on increased milk and alt and activity guidelines in the context of the family environment. Study funded by the Dairy Farmers of Canada Research Cluster Initiative (Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Dairy Commission). Grant Funding Source : Dairy Farmers of Canada Research Cluster Initiative
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".