Randomized trial of a prevention intervention that embeds weight‐related messages within a general parenting program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which an obesity prevention intervention that embeds obesity-related messages within a parenting program, compared with controls who received weekly mailings, resulted in a smaller increase in children's BMI (primary outcome) and improvements in weight-related behaviors from baseline to 9-month follow-up. METHODS: Fifty-six families were randomly assigned to the intervention and 56 to control. Children were primarily Hispanic (58%) or Black/African American (23%). Intervention included nine weekly: group parenting sessions, children's sessions, and homework assignments. At baseline, post-intervention, and 9-month follow-up, staff assessed children's weight and height. Parents completed surveys assessing parenting skills, feeding behaviors, and children's weight-related behaviors. RESULTS: From baseline to 9-month follow-up, BMI decreased by a mean of 0.13 kg m(-2) among children in the intervention and increased by 0.21 kg m(-2) among children in the control, resulting in a nonsignificant difference (multivariate adjusted difference = -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.23, 0.51; P = 0.41). Parents in the intervention decreased restrictive feeding practices relative to control (-0.30; 95% CI -0.53, -0.07; P = 0.01). Intervention and control arms showed similar changes in children's weight-related behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention improved restrictive feeding but did not influence children's BMI or weight-related behaviors compared to controls who received weekly mailings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".