MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167569358 · doi:10.1002/oby.23242

Keyto app and device versus WW app on weight loss and metabolic risk in adults with overweight or obesity: A randomized trial

2021· article· en· W3167569358 on OpenAlexafffund
Kaja Falkenhain, Sean Locke, Dylan A Lowe, Nicholas Reitsma, Terry Lee, Joel Singer, Ethan J. Weiss, Jonathan P. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesBrock UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsKetogenic dietMedicineWeight lossOverweightObesityRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineVery low calorie dietPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether a Mediterranean-style, ketogenic diet mobile health application (app) with breath acetone biofeedback is superior to a calorie-restricted, low-fat diet app in promoting weight loss. METHODS: , 71% female) were randomized to one of the interventions delivered entirely via app. Participants received a wireless scale and were instructed to take daily weight measurements. A third-party laboratory collected blood samples at baseline and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Weight loss at 12 weeks was greater in the ketogenic (-5.6 kg; 95% CI: -6.7 kg to -4.5 kg) compared with the low-fat group (-2.5 kg; 95% CI: -3.6 kg to -1.4 kg) (between-group difference: -3.1 kg; 95% CI: -4.6 kg to -1.5 kg; p < 0.001). Weight loss at 24 weeks indicated durability of the effect (between-group difference: -5.5 kg; 95% CI: -8.3 kg to -2.8 kg; p < 0.001). Secondary/exploratory outcomes of hemoglobin A1c and liver enzymes were improved to a greater extent in the ketogenic diet group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with overweight/obesity, a ketogenic diet app with breath acetone biofeedback was superior to a calorie-restricted diet app at promoting weight loss in a real-world setting.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesitySame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207