Examining the number and quality of physical activity-related if-then plans for weight loss success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The increasing prevalence of obesity has become a global public health concern. The current study seeks to address this issue by investigating the short and long term effects of physical activity-related if-then plans on weight loss success in participants of the McGill-CHIP Healthy Weight Program (HWP). Methods The present analyses includes a total of 292 physical activity-related if-then plans from 70 participants (82.1% females, mean age of 48.64 years, BMI range 28-45 kg/m2) at 3 months and 51 participants who completed all 22 sessions of the McGill-CHIP HWP. This was a randomized controlled trial featuring a prospective study design that aimed to increase the effectiveness of previous lifestyle behavior change programs by implementing evidence-based habit formation techniques (namely, if-then plans) for achieving weight loss success. Content analysis of if-then plans formed by participants of the program were coded by two independent coders with reference to qualitative coding guidelines for either low specificity (defined as a cue/response that can be more specifically described and questions are left to be answered) or high specificity (defined as a cue/response that cannot be more specifically described and all questions are answered). Results Results of a linear regression showed that a higher quantity of physical activity-related if-then plans combined with a higher level of specificity of if-thens plans was associated with a higher percent body weight lost at 3 months (β = .016, p = .038) but not at 12 months (β = .032, p =.062). Conclusions The results suggest that using highly specific if-then plans may be a successful tool for attaining short-term weight loss goals in overweight and obese populations. Lack of statistical significance at 12 months might be due to the smaller N and thus reduced statistical power. Key messages: Highly specific if-then plans may be a useful tool for forming physical activity habits and achieving short-term weight loss success in overweight and obese individuals. Costs and disability among multiple sclerosis patients: A Swedish register-based study
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".