MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Changes in lean mass and bone parameters in obese children participating in a family‐centered lifestyle intervention: results from a 1‐year RCT

2017· article· en· W2609616736 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tamara R. Cohen, Tom J. Hazell, Catherine A. Vanstone, Celia Rodd, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital of WinnipegWilfrid Laurier UniversityMcGill University
FundersCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialLean body massMedicineIntervention (counseling)Bone massPhysical therapyGerontologyInternal medicineOsteoporosisBody weightNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During childhood, both fat and lean mass (LM) influence bone development. Lifestyle behaviors, notably diet and physical activity (PA), influence adiposity and bone development though it is unknown if an intervention that focuses on dietary and PA guidelines favorably changes LM and bone parameters. Furthermore, it is not known if increasing milk and milk products and specifically weight‐bearing PA in obese children have any additive benefits on bone. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the changes in LM and bone parameters assessed by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) in overweight and obese children participating in a 1‐year family‐centered lifestyle intervention. Children (6–8 y) classified as overweight or obese according to WHO body mass index‐for‐age z‐scores (BAZ) were recruited from Montréal (QC, Canada). Children were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: Standard (StnTx; 2 servings milk and alternatives/d, meet PA guidelines), Modified (ModTx; 4 servings milk and alternatives/d; emphasis on daily weight‐bearing plus meet PA guidelines) or Control (Ctrl; no intervention). Whole body (WB) DXA (Hologic Discovery APEX software version 13.3) scans were performed at baseline and 12‐months for analysis of LM, LM index (LMI), fat mass (FM) and WB bone parameters (bone mineral density (BMD), BMD z‐scores, bone mineral content (BMC)). Parents completed a 3‐day food diary to assess dietary intake; total screen hours/week was surveyed. Statistics included Pearson's correlations and repeated‐measures mixed model ANOVA with post‐hoc adjustments to test for differences and changes (Δ) among the groups for body composition and bone variables from baseline to 12‐months. Models accounted for parental education and family income. Seventy‐eight children were recruited; 73 completed the 12‐month visit. At baseline, the majority were Caucasian (81%) and classified as obese (92%, mean BAZ: 3.3±1.2) with mean WB BMD z‐scores of 2.7±1.2, WB LM of 25.8±4.1 kg and FM of 16.3±4.6 kg. Groups did not differ at baseline for body composition or bone variables. Baseline LM was strongly associated with FM (r=0.64; p<0.001). Milk and alternative intake (n=50) did not associate with LM or FM, however total screen time (n=72; mean: 6.8±3.2 h/week) was positively associated with LM (r=0.25, p=0.032). By 12‐months, all groups significantly increased LM (p<0.001) however the ΔLM was significantly less in ModTx compared to StnTx (p=0.003) and Ctrl (p<0.001). Ctrl had a greater ΔFM at 12‐months compared to ModTx (p=0.002). WB BMC increased in all groups (p<0.001), but was not significantly different among groups. Finally, WB BMD z‐scores were significantly lower at 12‐months compared to baseline in Ctrl (p=0.012), but not in the intervention groups. Overweight and obese children who participated in a 1‐year family‐centered lifestyle intervention that focused on dietary and PA guidelines resulted in reduced adiposity while also supporting bone health, specifically WB BMD z‐scores. Support or Funding Information Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01290016; Supported by a contribution from the Dairy Research Cluster Initiative (Dairy Farmers of Canada, Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada, the Canadian Dairy Network and the Canadian Dairy Commission). H.W. is supported by Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Canada Research Chairs Program. T.C. is supported by Canadian Institutes for Health Research Doctoral Research Award

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→