Can a Lifestyle Genomics Intervention Motivate Patients to Engage in Greater Physical Activity than a Population-Based Intervention? Results from the NOW Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle genomics (LGx) is a science that explores interactions between genetic variation, lifestyle components such as physical activity (PA), and subsequent health- and performance-related outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether an LGx intervention could motivate enhanced engagement in PA to a greater extent than a population-based intervention. METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, participants received either the standard, population-based Group Lifestyle BalanceTM (GLB) program intervention or the GLB program in addition to the provision of LGx information and advice (GLB + LGx). Participants (n = 140) completed a 7-day PA recall at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Data from the PA recalls were used to calculate metabolic equivalents (METs), a measure of energy expenditure. Statistical analyses included split plot analyses of covariance and binary logistic regression (generalized linear models). Differences in leisure time PA weekly METs, weekly minutes of moderate + high-intensity PA, and adherence to PA guidelines were compared between groups (GLB and GLB + LGx) across the 4 time points. RESULTS: Weekly METs were significantly higher in the GLB + LGx group (1,114.7 ± 141.9; 95% CI 831.5-1,397.8) compared to the standard GLB group (621.6 ± 141.9 MET/week; 95% CI 338.4-904.8) at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.01). All other results were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of an LGx intervention resulted in a greater weekly leisure time PA energy expenditure after the 6-month follow-up. Future research should determine how this could be sustained over the long-term. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03015012.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".