<i>Dietary Counselling for Dyslipidemia in Primary Care:</i> Results of a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the effectiveness of physician advice versus dietitian advice for a fat-reduced diet, and of dietitian advice for a fat-reduced diet versus a soluble fibre-enhanced diet in patients with moderate dyslipidemia. A total of 111 men and women took part in this 26-week, three-group, randomized, clinical trial. The physician advice fat-reduced diet group (n = 38) and the dietitian advice fat-reduced diet group (n = 35) received dietary advice based on the American Heart Association (AHA) Step II guidelines. The dietitian advice soluble fibre-enhanced diet group (n = 38) consumed one-third cup per day of psyllium-containing cereal and was advised to increase soluble fibre intake to over 10 grams a day. LDL-C, TC/HDL-C ratio and body weight reductions over six months were -5.3%, -4.6%, and -1.9%, respectively, regardless of whether a physician or a dietitian provided advice, or whether advice was focused on a fat-reduced diet or a soluble fibre-enhanced diet. Both dietitians and physicians can help moderately dyslipidemic patients make clinically meaningful changes in blood lipid levels. Soluble fibre enhancement of the usual diet leads to similar reductions in LDL-C and TC/HDL-C ratio compared to interventions focused on fat reduction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".