Correction: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mini Low-Carbohydrate Diet and an Energy-Controlled Diet Among Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the lack of some values in the previous version, Tables 1 and2 and Figures 3 and4 are slightly changed.The corrected tables and figures were described below.In page 185, right paragraph, "However, there was a difference in LDL-cholesterol levels between the two groups (P = 0.018)."should be deleted, and Results for Figure 3 and Figure 4 should read "No difference was seen in the HbA1c of patients in either group at week 12, as compared with the baseline (mini-LCD: P = 0.40; ECD: P = 0.10) (Fig. 3).Patients in the mini-LCD group showed a significant difference in body weight at week 12, as compared with the baseline (P = 0.03); however, no significant difference was seen in patients in the ECD group (P = 0.50) (Fig. 4)".In page 187, left paragraph, the results about protein intake should read "There was a tendency to show the difference in protein intake between the two groups from the baseline and week 12 (mini-LCD: 3.7 ± 4.6; ECD: -1.9 ± 3.5; P = 0.34)".In page 187, right paragraph, the Discussion about propensity score matching should read "A difference in HbA1c between the two groups or from week 0 to 12 after propensity score matching showed no significant changes.",and the following description should be deleted: "However, an increase in protein intake was observed in the mini-LCD group from the baseline to week 12 (P = 0.045)" should be deleted.In page 188, left paragraph, the Discussion about body weight changes should read "Previous reports have demonstrated that low carbohydrate diets are associated with weight loss in obese patients [4, 13, 14].The present study also demonstrated that the mini-LCD diet tended to decrease the body weight.
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 | 0.021 | 0.206 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.013 |
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".