MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2962993039 · doi:10.2196/14338

Weight Loss After Stroke Through an Intensive Lifestyle Intervention (Group Lifestyle Balance-Cerebrovascular Accident): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2019· article· en· W2962993039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Simon Driver, Chad Swank, Katherine Froehlich-Grobe, Evan McShan, Stephanie Calhoun, Monica Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineWeight lossPhysical therapyStroke (engine)Balance (ability)Protocol (science)Intervention (counseling)ObesityAlternative medicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Weight gain can be a consequence of stroke, or cerebrovascular accident (CVA), because of impaired mobility, behavioral and emotional disorders, and sensory losses. Weight gain increases the patient's risk of recurrent stroke and chronic diseases, such as diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and pulmonary and heart disease. Approaches to weight loss in this population are lacking, although necessary because of the unique physiological and cognitive needs of persons after a stroke. Evidence shows that intensive behavioral therapy interventions that address both physical activity and diet offer the greatest potential for weight loss. The Group Lifestyle Balance (GLB) intervention is a 12-month, evidence-based weight loss program that has been used extensively with the general population; this program was modified to meet the needs of people who have had a stroke (GLB-CVA). OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to examine the efficacy of the GLB-CVA on weight and secondary outcomes, compared with that of a waitlist control group. METHODS: This RCT will enroll and randomize 64 patients over an 18-month period. RESULTS: Currently, 51 people are waitlisted, with 23 out of 51 screened and 16 out of 23 eligible. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the findings from this RCT will contribute to the evidence base regarding weight loss strategies for people living with stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03873467; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03873467.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0850.015

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.421 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→