Detailed Versus Simplified Dietary Self-monitoring in a Digital Weight Loss Intervention Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Adults: Fully Remote, Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detailed self-monitoring (or tracking) of dietary intake is a popular and effective weight loss approach that can be delivered via digital tools, although engagement declines over time. Simplifying the experience of self-monitoring diet may counteract this decline in engagement. Testing these strategies among racial and ethnic minority groups is important as these groups are often disproportionately affected by obesity yet underrepresented in behavioral obesity treatment. OBJECTIVE: In this 2-arm pilot study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a digital weight loss intervention with either detailed or simplified dietary self-monitoring. METHODS: and living in the United States. The Pacific time zone was selected for a fully remote study. Participants received a 3-month stand-alone digital weight loss intervention and were randomized 1:1 to either the detailed arm that was instructed to self-monitor all foods and drinks consumed each day using the Fitbit mobile app or to the simplified arm that was instructed to self-monitor only red zone foods (foods that are highly caloric and of limited nutritional value) each day via a web-based checklist. All participants were instructed to self-monitor both steps and body weight daily. Each week, participants were emailed behavioral lessons, action plans, and personalized feedback. In total, 12 a priori benchmarks were set to establish feasibility, including outcomes related to reach, retention, and self-monitoring engagement (assessed objectively via digital tools). Acceptability was assessed using a questionnaire. Weight change was assessed using scales shipped to the participants' homes and reported descriptively. RESULTS: . More than half (22/38, 58%) were identified as Hispanic of any race. The study retention rate was 92% (35/38) at 3 months. The detailed arm met 9 of 12 feasibility benchmarks, while the simplified arm met all 12. Self-monitoring engagement was moderate to high (self-monitoring diet: median of 49% of days for detailed, 97% for simplified; self-monitoring steps: 99% for detailed, 100% for simplified; self-monitoring weight: 67% for detailed, 80% for simplified). Participants in both arms reported high satisfaction, with 89% indicating that they would recommend the intervention. Weight change was -3.4 (95% CI -4.6 to -2.2) kg for detailed and -3.3 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.2) kg for simplified. CONCLUSIONS: A digital weight loss intervention that incorporated either detailed or simplified dietary self-monitoring was feasible, with high retention and engagement, and acceptable to racial and ethnic minority adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ASPREDICTED #66674; https://aspredicted.org/ka478.pdf.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".