Intermittent Versus Continuous Low-Energy Diet in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensive face-to-face weight loss programs using continuous low-energy diets (CLEDs) providing approximately 800 kcal per day (3347 kJ per day) can produce significant weight loss and remission from type 2 diabetes (T2D). Intermittent low-energy diets (ILEDs) and remotely delivered programs could be viable alternatives that may support patient choice and adherence. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocol of a pilot randomized controlled trial to test the feasibility and potential efficacy of remotely supported isocaloric ILED and CLED programs among patients with overweight and obesity and T2D. METHODS: A total of 79 participants were recruited from primary care, two National Health Service hospital trusts, and a voluntary T2D research register in the United Kingdom. The participants were randomized to a remotely delivered ILED (n=39) or CLED (n=40). The active weight loss phase of CLED involved 8 weeks of Optifast 820 kcal/3430 kJ formula diet, followed by 4 weeks of food reintroduction. The active weight loss phase of ILED (n=39) comprised 2 days of Optifast 820 kcal/3430 kJ diet and 5 days of a portion-controlled Mediterranean diet for 28 weeks. Both groups were asked to complete 56 Optifast 820 kcal/3430 kJ days during their active weight loss phase with an equivalent energy deficit. The diets were isocaloric for the remainder of the 12 months. CLED participants were asked to follow a portion-controlled Mediterranean diet 7 days per week. ILED followed 1-2 days per week of a food-based 820 kcal/3430 kJ diet and a portion-controlled Mediterranean diet for 5-6 days per week. Participants received high-frequency (weekly, fortnightly, or monthly depending on the stage of the trial) multidisciplinary remote support from a dietitian, nurse, exercise specialist, and psychologist via telephone or the Oviva smartphone app. The primary outcomes of the study were uptake, weight loss, and changes in glycated hemoglobin at 12 months. An outcome assessment of trial retention was retrospectively added. Secondary outcomes included an assessment of adherence and adverse events. A qualitative evaluation was undertaken via interviews with participants and health care professionals who delivered the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 79 overweight or obese participants aged 18-75 years and diagnosed with T2D in the last 8 years were recruited to the Manchester Intermittent and Daily Diet Diabetes App Study (MIDDAS). Recruitment began in February 2018, and data collection was completed in February 2020. Data analysis began in June 2020, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the MIDDAS study will inform the feasibility of remotely delivered ILED and CLED programs in clinical practice and the requirement for a larger-scale randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 15394285; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15394285. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21116.
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 | 0.030 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.011 |
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".