Diets with different targets for intake of fat, protein, and carbohydrates achieved similar weight loss in obese adultsCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the relative effectiveness for long-term weight loss of energy-reduced diets that differ in their targets for intake of fat, protein, and carbohydrates? ### Design: randomised controlled trial. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00072995. ### Allocation: concealed. ### Blinding: blinded (participants, investigators, data collectors, and outcome assessors). ### Follow-up period: 2 years. ### Setting: 2 university hospitals in the USA. ### Participants: 811 overweight or obese adults 30–70 years of age (mean age 51 y, 64% women) with body mass index 25–40 kg/m2 (mean 33). Exclusion criteria included diabetes, unstable cardiovascular disease, and insufficient motivation. ### Intervention: assignment to 1 of 4 diets: low-fat, average-protein (20% fat, 15% protein, 65% carbohydrates) (n = 204); low-fat, high-protein (20% fat, 25% protein, 55% carbohydrates) (n = 202); high-fat, average-protein (40% fat, 15% protein, 45% carbohydrates) (n = 204); or high-fat, high-protein (40% fat, 25% protein, 35% carbohydrates) (n = 201). Daily meal plans were provided. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".