A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mini Low-Carbohydrate Diet and an Energy-Controlled Diet Among Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to effectively improve the metabolic status of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, patients may find it challenging to maintain a strict low-carbohydrate diet. The objective of this study was to determine if a one-meal, low-carbohydrate diet is as effective in improving metabolic status as a conventional, energy-restricted diet among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In this 12-week randomized controlled study, the primary endpoint was differences in the changes of plasma glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the two experimental groups. Since the two groups had differences in body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference, propensity score matching was used to assess HbA1c outcomes via cohort pairs according to age, sex, body weight, HbA1c level, and waist circumference. RESULTS: There were no differences in the changes in HbA1c between the two groups (P = 0.95). In addition, there were no differences in the changes in glycated albumin, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, lipid profile, body weight, waist circumference, and fat mass between the two groups. The mini low-carbohydrate diet group had an increased protein intake (P = 0.0085), as compared with the control group. However, neither group showed changes in their Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score. CONCLUSION: Either diet would be effective for improving the metabolic status of this study population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".