Effect of an mHealth Intervention Using a Pedometer App With Full In-Person Counseling on Body Composition of Overweight Adults: Randomized Controlled Weight Loss Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, it is difficult to convey the benefits of sustained physical activity to adult patients with excess weight or obesity. For this purpose, a goal-setting walking prescription may be an effective strategy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of the intervention of a pedometer app in setting a goal to reach 10,000 steps per day in adults. METHODS: Overweight adults (n=98; mean body mass index 32.53 [SD 4.92] kg/m2) were randomized to one of two conditions (control or intervention). Both groups downloaded a pedometer app that recorded their daily step counts and were given a daily walking goal of 10,000 steps. Subjects participated in a 24-week in-person behavioral weight control program and were asked to monitor their daily levels using the pedometer app. Baseline data were recorded and followed up weekly. Only the intervention group had structured information delivery, a personalized physical activity prescription, and follow-up on number of steps per day. RESULTS: The results show that regardless of sex or age, prescribing walking increased the number of steps per day by 4806 step on average (standardized β coefficient=-0.813, SE=427.586, t=-11.242, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results could have implications for improving self-monitoring in overweight adults during periods of weight loss. Health professionals should analyze the implementation of tools that permit them to prescribe, follow up, and encourage the achievement of a goal of physical activity in overweight or obese patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03845478; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03845478.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".