A pilot study to assess the feasibility of a sham anti-inflammatory diet: Can inflammation neutrality and participant blinding be achieved?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context: While randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard for investigating the effects of dietary interventions, the complexity of designing such trials has limited their use. Study Design: Single centre, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Objective: Primary objectives included the assessment of the impact of a sham anti-inflammatory diet on inflammation and participant blinding. Methods: This dietary advice trial involved participants with spinal cord injury (SCI), randomized to either a sham-diet condition (n=8) or non-dieting control condition (n=8). Participants in the sham-diet group were told they would be randomized to either an anti-inflammatory diet condition, or a sham diet designed to be inflammation-neutral. Participants randomized to the sham-condition completed a diet consultation prior to beginning the diet for a period of 4-weeks. Primary outcomes of interest included the change in inflammation as assessed by plasma concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), and participant blinding assessed upon completion of the trial. Results: All members of the control group and 6 of 8 members of the sham-diet group completed the intervention. Blinding was successful as all 6 members who completed the sham-diet believed they were on the true anti-inflammatory diet. Further, the sham diet was shown to have no significant effect on inflammation over the 4-week intervention period as demonstrated by plasma CRP concentrations. Conclusion: This pilot study provides preliminary evidence for the utility of a sham-anti-inflammatory diet and could be used to strengthen the design of future dietary interventions utilizing anti-inflammatory diets.
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 | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".