Difficulties in Recruitment for a Randomised Controlled Trial of Lifestyle Intervention for Type 2 Diabetes: Implications for Diabetes Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To report our experience of attempting a randomised controlled trial of an intensive lifestyle intervention for early type 2 diabetes delivered in a residential setting. Methods: We established a trial requiring 84 participants (46 standard care and 38 intervention) to detect a 1% difference in HbA1c between intervention and control groups at 12 months, allowing for attrition. Ethics approval was obtained from Monash University. Results: The study was abandoned after five months of consistent promotion due to recruitment failure (four subjects recruited). Conclusion: It appears to be difficult for patients with diabetes to commit to a live-in period of education regarding lifestyle modification as a means of treating the illness. We recommend better education of patients and their doctors about the potential health benefits of lifestyle change to manage type 2 diabetes, and further research into novel methods of delivering lifestyle advice which are both effective and sustainable.
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 | 0.486 | 0.505 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".