MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161398904 · doi:10.2196/28392

Evaluating the Impact of a Digital Nutrition Platform on Cholesterol Levels in Users With Dyslipidemia: Longitudinal Study

2021· article· en· W3161398904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily Hu, Jared Scharen, Viet Nguyen, Jason Langheier

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cardio · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslipidemiaMealCholesterolObservational studyMedicineLipid profileNational Cholesterol Education ProgramLdl cholesterolInternal medicineEndocrinologyEnvironmental healthPhysiologyObesityMetabolic syndrome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A strong association exists between consuming a healthy diet and lowering cholesterol levels among individuals with high cholesterol. However, implementing and sustaining a healthy diet in the real world is a major challenge. Digital technologies are at the forefront of changing dietary behavior on a massive scale, as they can reach broad populations. There is a lack of evidence that has examined the benefit of a digital nutrition intervention, especially one that incorporates nutrition education, meal planning, and food ordering, on cholesterol levels among individuals with dyslipidemia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this observational longitudinal study was to examine the characteristics of people with dyslipidemia, determine how their status changed over time, and evaluate the changes in total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-HDL-C, and triglycerides among individuals with elevated lipids who used Foodsmart, a digital nutrition platform that integrates education, meal planning, and food ordering. METHODS: We included 653 adults who used Foodsmart between January 2015 and February 2021, and reported a lipid marker twice. Participants self-reported age, gender, weight, and usual dietary intake in a 53-item food frequency questionnaire, and lipid values could be provided at any time. Dyslipidemia was defined as total cholesterol ≥200 mg/dL, HDL-C ≤40 mg/dL, LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL, or triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL. We retrospectively analyzed distributions of user characteristics and their associations with the likelihood of returning to normal lipid levels. We calculated the mean changes and percent changes in lipid markers among users with elevated lipids. RESULTS: In our total sample, 54.1% (353/653) of participants had dyslipidemia at baseline. Participants with dyslipidemia at baseline were more likely to be older, be male, and have a higher weight and BMI compared with participants who had normal lipid levels. We found that 36.3% (128/353) of participants who had dyslipidemia at baseline improved their lipid levels to normal by the end of follow-up. Using multivariate logistic regression, we found that baseline obesity (odds ratio [OR] 2.57, 95% CI 1.25-5.29; P=.01) and Nutriscore (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.09; P=.04) were directly associated with achieving normal lipid levels. Participants with elevated lipid levels saw improvements as follows: HDL-C increased by 38.5%, total cholesterol decreased by 6.8%, cholesterol ratio decreased by 20.9%, LDL-C decreased by 12.9%, non-HDL-C decreased by 7.8%, and triglycerides decreased by 10.8%. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterized users of the Foodsmart platform who had dyslipidemia and found that users with elevated lipid levels showed improvements in the levels over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CardioSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207