A small change approach on adiposity, lean mass and bone mineral density in adults with overweight and obesity: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine whether small changes in physical activity and diet could prevent adverse changes in body composition over 2 years in adults with overweight and obesity. Previously inactive adults (N = 289) were included in a secondary analysis of data derived from a 3-year, single-centre, two-arm, longitudinal randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to a small change approach (N = 144, body mass index: 32.4 ± 4.2 [mean ± standard deviation], age: 52.3 ±. 10.6 years) or usual care (N = 145, body mass index: 32.4 ± 4.2, age: 53.1 ± 10.6 years). Small change approach participants were counselled to make small changes in diet and physical activity, while usual care participants were asked to maintain their usual lifestyle. Adiposity, lean mass and bone mineral density were measured by dual-x-ray absorptiometry. The change in total adiposity was significantly greater in the small change approach group than usual care at 6 and 12 months but did not remain significant at 24 months (mean change [standard error] -0.8 [0.4] vs. -0.7 [0.4] kg; difference 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.2 to 1.1). Changes in visceral fat were significantly greater in the small change approach than usual care at 6 and 12 months but did not remain significant at 24 months (-0.04 [0.03] vs. 0.02 [0.03] kg; difference 0.06, 95% CI: -1.5 to 0.3). Changes in lean mass or bone mineral density were not significantly different between groups at any time point (all p > 0.1). The small change approach did not prevent gains in adiposity or losses in lean mass compared to usual care at 2 years in adults with overweight or obesity. No difference from baseline in adiposity, lean mass or bone mineral density was observed in either arm of the trial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".