MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969599937 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-146

Feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to reduce overweight and obesity in children: The electronic games to aid motivation to exercise (eGAME) study

2009· article· en· W1969599937 on OpenAlexaff
Ralph Maddison, Louise Foley, Cliona Ní Mhurchú, Andrew Jull, Yannan Jiang, Harry Prapavessis, Anthony Rodgers, Stephen Vander Hoorn, Maea Hohepa, David Schaaf

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandTertiary Education Commission
KeywordsOverweightBiostatisticsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyBody mass indexVideo gameWaistChildhood obesityObesityPublic healthMultimediaNursingSurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions in developed countries. Sedentary screen-based activities such as video gaming are thought to displace active behaviors and are independently associated with obesity. Active video games, where players physically interact with images onscreen, may have utility as a novel intervention to increase physical activity and improve body composition in children. The aim of the Electronic Games to Aid Motivation to Exercise (eGAME) study is to determine the effects of an active video game intervention over 6 months on: body mass index (BMI), percent body fat, waist circumference, cardio-respiratory fitness, and physical activity levels in overweight children. METHODS/DESIGN: Three hundred and thirty participants aged 10-14 years will be randomized to receive either an active video game upgrade package or to a control group (no intervention). DISCUSSION: An overview of the eGAME study is presented, providing an example of a large, pragmatic randomized controlled trial in a community setting. Reflection is offered on key issues encountered during the course of the study. In particular, investigation into the feasibility of the proposed intervention, as well as robust testing of proposed study procedures is a critical step prior to implementation of a large-scale trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207