Exploratory Analysis of the Variable Response to an Intensive Lifestyle Change Program for Metabolic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Wide variability in response to lifestyle interventions has been recognized for many years, and researchers have begun to disentangle sources of error from inherent differences in individual responsiveness. The objective of this secondary analysis of an intensive lifestyle intervention (diet and exercise) for metabolic syndrome (MetS) was to identify potentially important differences among study completers grouped by treatment response as measured by change in a continuous metabolic syndrome (Gurka/MetS) score. Methods All study completers from a 12-month primary care study were categorized into one of five groups according to change in the Gurka/MetS score. A change of 0.4 in z-score defined clinically relevant change in line with results of previous studies. Repeated measures analysis of covariance was used to examine the Gurka/MetS score over 12 months, looking for differences in response over time by the five groups. Results Of 176 participants, 50% (n = 88) had stable scores, 10% (n = 18) had relevant change scores in the first 3 months only and reverted toward baseline, 20% (n = 35) achieved meaningful change over the whole study, 11% (n = 20) had a delayed response at 3–12 months, and 9% (n = 15) demonstrated worsening scores. Significant response group*time differences were noted (p < 0.001). Improvement in diet quality and fitness scores were similar across all groups. Available other variables did not account for the differences. Conclusion Work is needed to identify key factors that account for differences in responses to lifestyle interventions that can be used to guide treatment decisions for intensive lifestyle interventions for this common condition. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01616563; first registered June 12, 2012.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".