Determinants of Weight Gain Prevention in Young Adult and Midlife Women: Study Design and Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of overweight and obesity through body weight reduction has been monumentally ineffective as few individuals are able to sustain weight loss. Rather than treating weight gain once it has become problematic, prevention of weight gain over time may be more effective. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research is to preclude the burden of adult obesity in women by identifying the determinants of weight gain prevention. The objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to compare a weight gain prevention intervention delivered by the registered dietitian versus counselor. METHODS: This is a 12-month parallel-arm weight gain prevention RCT designed to increase self-efficacy, self-regulation, outcome expectations and family and social support through the use of a nutrition education intervention in women, aged 18-45 years, from the Urbana-Champaign (Illinois, USA) area. Women have been randomized to registered dietitian, counselor or wait-list control groups (August 2014) and are undergoing weekly nutrition education sessions for four months, followed by monthly sessions for eight months (through August 2015). Outcome measures, including: (1) dietary intake, (2) physical activity, (3) anthropometric and blood pressure measurements, (4) biochemical markers of health, (5) eating behaviors and health perceptions, and (6) mediators of behavior change, were collected before the intervention began (baseline) and will be collected at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of the study. RESULTS: In total, 87 women have been randomized to intervention groups, and 81 women have completed first week of the study. Results are expected in early 2016. CONCLUSIONS: This RCT is one of the first to examine weight gain prevention in women across normal, overweight, and obese body mass index categories. Results of this research are expected to have application to evidence-based practice in weight gain prevention for women and possibly have implication for policy regarding decreasing the encumbrance of overweight and obesity in the United States.
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 | 0.068 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.007 |
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".