The Manitoba Personalized Lifestyle Research (TMPLR) study protocol: a multicentre bidirectional observational cohort study with administrative health record linkage investigating the interactions between lifestyle and health in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lifestyle factors, such as diet, physical activity and sleep, are associated with the development of many chronic diseases. The objective of The Manitoba Personalized Lifestyle Research study is to understand how these lifestyle factors interact with each other and with other factors, such as an individual's genetics and gut microbiome, to influence health. METHODS: An observational study of adults, with extensive phenotyping by objective health and lifestyle assessments, and retrospective assessment of early life experiences, with retrospective and prospective utilisation of secondary data from administrative health records. STUDY POPULATION: ) and geography (25% from rural areas). These stratifications were selected based on Manitoba demographics. MEASUREMENTS: Lifestyle factors assessed will include dietary pattern, physical activity, cardiovascular fitness, and sleep. Factors such as medical history, socioeconomic status, alcohol and tobacco consumption, cognition, stress, anxiety, and early life experiences will also be documented. A maternal survey will be performed. Body composition and bone density will be measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, and augmentation index will be measured on two consecutive days. Chronic disease risk biomarkers will be measured in blood and urine samples. DNA will be extracted for genetic analysis. A faecal sample will be collected for microbiome analysis. Participants may provide their Manitoba personal health information number to link their study data with administrative health records. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board (protocol # HS18951; 05/01/2016). Data analysis, release of results and publication of manuscripts are scheduled to start in early 2019. Additional information at www.TMPLR.ca. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03674957; Pre-results.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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.
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".