The Atkins diet led to more weight loss than the Zone diet in overweight and obese premenopausal women at 12 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gardner CD, Kiazand A, Alhassan S, et al . Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study: a randomized trial. JAMA 2007;297:969–77. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In overweight or obese premenopausal women, how do the Atkins; Zone; Lifestyle, Exercise, Attitudes, Relationships, and Nutrition (LEARN); and Ornish diets compare for weight loss? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Obesity—surgeon ★★★★★★☆ Obesity—physician ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial (The Atkins, Traditional, Ornish, Zone [A TO Z] Weight Loss Study). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: unclear allocation concealment.* ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded {data collectors, data analysts, and data safety and monitoring committee}†.* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 12 months. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: USA. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 311 premenopausal women 25–50 years of age (mean age 41 y, 71% white) who were overweight or obese (body mass index [BMI] 27–40 kg/m2), had stable body weight in the past 2 months, and stable medications for ⩾3 months. Exclusion criteria included diabetes; hypertension; … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DGardner%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%2BD.%26rft.volume%253D297%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D969%26rft.epage%253D977%26rft.atitle%253DComparison%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAtkins%252C%2BZone%252C%2BOrnish%252C%2Band%2BLEARN%2BDiets%2Bfor%2BChange%2Bin%2BWeight%2Band%2BRelated%2BRisk%2BFactors%2BAmong%2BOverweight%2BPremenopausal%2BWomen%253A%2BThe%2BA%2BTO%2BZ%2BWeight%2BLoss%2BStudy%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.297.9.969%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17341711%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.297.9.969&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17341711&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F5%2F138.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000244697900026&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".