MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2947028816 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxz066.059

60 CoMFORT: Cow Milk Fat Obesity pRevention Trial Feasibility Study

2019· article· en· W2947028816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shelley Vanderhout, Mary Aglipay, Jonathon L. Maguire, Clara Juandó‐Prats

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverweightObesityObservational studyThematic analysisChildhood obesityDescriptive statisticsRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineEnvironmental healthQualitative researchInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1992, Health Canada has recommended that children switch from whole fat cow’s milk (3.25%) to reduced fat cow’s milk (1–2%) at age 2 years to reduce risk of obesity. Despite this, observational evidence has consistently shown that children who consume whole cow’s milk have lower measures of adiposity and risk of overweight/obesity. Intervention research is needed to understand the causal relationship between cow’s milk fat and adiposity in childhood. While traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are time consuming, costly, and require many resources, usual care research within existing research cohorts may be a promising way to minimize necessary resources and expedite large, representative RCTs. However, usual care practices and perspectives on cow’s milk fat among physicians and parents are unknown. The objectives of this study were to first understand cow’s milk fat practice among physicians and parents, and assess the acceptability of a recommendation for whole milk. Next, we aimed to use these results to design the CoMFORT trial, which will evaluate the effect of cow’s milk fat on child adiposity. This study took place within the TARGet Kids! primary care research network. We conducted online questionnaires through SurveyMonkey (surveymonkey.com), followed by in-depth interviews with primary care physicians, and parents of children aged 2–5 years who drink milk. Questionnaire data was analyzed using descriptive statistics; interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a general inductive approach and thematic analysis. Themes relevant to our objectives were identified and described to capture core messages from both physicians and parents. Physician and parent experiences and views were reviewed by the study team to create a framework for the CoMFORT protocol, identify barriers and facilitators to the CoMFORT intervention, and inform strategies for maximizing trial enrolment and adherence. Online surveys were completed by 50 parents and 15 physicians. In-depth interviews were conducted with 14 parents and 12 physicians. At the 2-year well-child visit, 29% of physicians usually recommended reduced fat (2%) milk, 36% recommended whole fat (3.25%) milk, and 36% made no milk fat recommendation. Among parents, 62% currently provided reduced fat (0.1–2%) milk, and 38% provided whole fat (3.25%) milk to their children. Overall, physicians and parents were willing to provide whole fat milk to children over age 2 years. Thematic analysis identified three themes: trust, in evidence among physicians and in physicians among parents; fat, and its role in a child’s diet; and healthy food – what it is, and how identity interacts with the provision of healthy food. Parent and physician usual practice, and attitudes and perceptions about cow’s milk fat, confirmed the feasibility and need for a usual care RCT. These findings allowed us to understand physician and parent decision making practices, attitudes towards cow’s milk fat in children’s diets, and factors that would encourage or limit adherence to the CoMFORT trial protocol. The CoMFORT trial will inform international guidelines for cow’s milk consumption in childhood and positively impact child growth and development.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designNon-randomized 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicObesity and Health Practices→French-language works237,207→