Use of a Smartphone App for Weight Loss Versus a Paper-Based Dietary Diary in Overweight Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) tools may be useful platforms for dietary monitoring and assessment. OBJECTIVE: or above. METHODS: A total of 33 men and 17 women aged 18-39 years participated in a 6-week randomized controlled trial. We randomly assigned participants to one of two groups: (1) a smartphone app group (n=25) or (2) a paper-based diary group (n=25). The smartphone app group recorded foods and dietary supplements that they consumed and received immediate dietary feedback using Well-D, a dietary self-monitoring app developed by our team. The paper-based diary group was instructed to record foods or supplements that they consumed using a self-recorded diary. The primary outcomes were weight, BMI, waist circumference, body fat mass, and skeletal muscle mass. We also examined changes in nutrient intake, including energy, carbohydrate, protein, fat, dietary fiber, vitamins, and minerals, using 3-day 24-hour recalls. Differences in changes between the two groups were analyzed using independent t tests or Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney tests. All of the data were analyzed using intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The mean number of days recorded was 18.5 (SD 14.1) for the app group and 15.5 (SD 10.1) for the paper-based diary group. The differences in changes in weight, BMI, and waist circumference were not significantly different between the app group and paper-based diary group (P=.33, .34, and .70, respectively). Similarly, changes in body fat mass or skeletal muscle mass did not differ between the two groups (P=.71 and .054, respectively). Although energy intake was reduced in both groups, there was no significant difference in changes in energy intake between the two groups (P=.98). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in changes in anthropometric measures and nutrient intake between the app group and the paper-based diary group. Both mobile dietary self-monitoring app and paper-based diary may be useful for improving anthropometric measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service KCT0003170; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/search_result_st01_en.jsp?seq=11642
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".