No additional long‐term effect of group vs individual family intervention in the treatment of childhood obesity—A randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Long-term evaluations of childhood obesity treatments are needed. We examined changes in weight and cardiometabolic risk 1 year after children completed individual family or group-based weight management interventions. METHODS: In 2009-2010, 6- to 12-year-old children with overweight or obesity from Finnmark and Troms (Norway) were recruited after media coverage and randomised to 24 months of individual family (n = 49) or group intervention (n = 48). Individual family intervention included counselling by a paediatric hospital team and a public health nurse in the local community. Group intervention included meetings with other families and a multidisciplinary hospital team, weekly physical activity sessions and a family camp. The primary outcome body mass index (BMI) and cardiometabolic risk factors were analysed 12 months after intervention. RESULTS: , P = 0.096). Data were available from 62 children (64%). Between-group differences in C peptide (P = 0.01) were detected in favour of group intervention. Pooled data from both treatment groups showed continued decrease in BMI standard deviation score (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: No between-group difference in BMI was observed 12 months after intervention. Both groups combined showed sustained decrease in BMI standard deviation score.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".