Physical and Emotional Health Effects and Social Consequences After Participation in a Low-Fat, High-Carbohydrate Dietary Trial for More Than 5 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about the potential adverse effects of interventions to reduce dietary fat. We examined the physical and emotional health effects, and social consequences experienced by women at high risk for breast cancer who had participated in a low-fat diet intervention, randomized, controlled trial for at least 5 years. METHODS: Participants in the Canadian Diet and Breast Cancer Prevention Trial from British Columbia were mailed a survey questionnaire that included the validated Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Women's Health Questionnaire (WHQ), and a series of questions on health-related and social constructs. Responses were compared between the diet intervention and control groups by menopausal status. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 359 women in the diet intervention group and 382 in the control group. No significant differences were found between these groups for SF-36 and WHQ health outcomes, hair/nail changes, physical activity levels, family/friend support levels, and doctor visits. Significantly more women in the intervention group reported taking products for arthritis (other than pain medication), greater difficulty in maintaining eating habits in social situations and at work, greater stress, and guilt related to personal eating habits. These findings persisted for both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. CONCLUSION: Changes resulting from a low-fat diet intervention can be incorporated into women's daily lives with limited long-term negative effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".