Optimizing an Obesity Treatment Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy Framework: Protocol for a Randomized Factorial Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective weight loss interventions exist, yet few can be scaled up for wide dissemination. Further, none has been fully delivered via text message. We used the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) to develop multicomponent interventions that consist only of active components, those that have been experimentally determined to impact the chosen outcome. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to optimize a standalone text messaging obesity intervention, Charge, using the MOST framework to experimentally determine which text messaging components produce a meaningful contribution to weight change at 6 months. METHODS: We designed a 6-month, weight loss texting intervention based on our interactive obesity treatment approach (iOTA). Participants are randomized to one of 32 experimental conditions to test which standalone text messaging intervention components produce a meaningful contribution to weight change at 6 months. RESULTS: The project was funded in February 2017; enrollment began in January 2018 and data collection was completed in June 2019. Data analysis is in progress and first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Full factorial trials are particularly efficient in terms of cost and logistics when leveraged for standalone digital treatments. Accordingly, MOST has the potential to promote the rapid advancement of digital health treatments. Subject to positive findings, the intervention will be low cost, immediately scalable, and ready for dissemination. This will be of great potential use to the millions of Americans with obesity and the providers who treat them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03254940; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03254940. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/19506.
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 | 0.043 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.015 |
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.
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".