Adherence to Diet and Meal Timing in a Randomized Controlled Feeding Study of Time-Restricted Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adherence is critical in feeding studies to determine the efficacy of dietary interventions. This time-restricted intake of meals (TRIM) investigation was a controlled feeding study that randomized 41 participants to follow 12 weeks of time-restricted feeding (TRF) or a usual feeding pattern (UFP). Adherence was optimized through careful screening and participant orientation, flexibility in beverages and seasonings, and frequent contact between participants and staff. Adherence was measured daily using a self-administered diary form. We calculated the percentage of participant-days with perfect adherence to meal timing (ate all meals within their designated time window) and to food consumption (ate all study food and no non-study food). Adherence was compared between study arms, days of the week, and weeks of the study period using generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression. There was perfect adherence to meal timing on 87% of participant-days and to food consumption on 94% of participant-days, with no significant difference by arm. In UFP, but not TRF, participants had lower adherence to meal timing over the weekend (p-value = 0.002) and during the first two weeks of intervention (p-value = 0.03). A controlled feeding study randomizing free-living individuals to different meal timings achieved a high degree of adherence to meal timing and food consumption, utilizing multiple strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".