The nutrition and immunity (nutrIMM) study: protocol for a non-randomized, four-arm parallel-group, controlled feeding trial investigating immune function in obesity and type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Individuals with obesity and/or type 2 diabetes are at higher risk of infection and have worse prognoses compared to healthy individuals. Several factors may influence immune responses in this population, including high adiposity, hyperglycemia, and unhealthy dietary habits. However, there is insufficient data on the independent or clustered contribution of these factors to obesity-related immune dysfunction, especially accounting for dietary intake. This study aims to establish the independent contribution of obesity and hyperglycemia to immune dysfunction independent of diet in adults with and without obesity with or without type 2 diabetes. Methods The Nutrition and Immunity (nutrIMM) study is a single-centre, non-randomized, four-arm, parallel-group, controlled feeding trial. It will enroll adults without obesity (Lean-NG) and with obesity and three metabolic phenotypes of normoglycemia, glucose intolerance, and type 2 diabetes. Participants will be assigned to one of four groups and will consume a standard North American-type diet for 4 weeks. The primary outcomes are plasma concentration of C-reactive protein and concentration of ex-vivo interleukin-2 secreted upon stimulation of T cells with phytohemagglutinin. Discussion This will be the first controlled feeding study examining the contribution of obesity, hyperglycemia, and diet on systemic inflammation, immune cell phenotype, and function in adults of both sexes. Results of this clinical trial can ultimately be used to develop personalized dietary strategies to optimize immune function in individuals with obesity with different immune and metabolic profiles. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier NCT04291391.
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 | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.012 |
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".