Intensive Weight-Loss Lifestyle Intervention Using Mediterranean Diet and COVID-19 Risk in Older Adults: Secondary Analysis of PREDIMED-Plus Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We tested the effects of a weight-loss intervention encouraging energy-reduced MedDiet and physical activity (PA) in comparison to ad libitum MedDiet on COVID-19 incidence in older adults. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of PREDIMED-Plus, a prospective, ongoing, multicentre randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community-dwelling, free-living participants in PREDIMED-Plus trial. PARTICIPANTS: 6,874 Spanish older adults (55-75 years, 49% women) with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to Intervention (IG) or Control (CG) Group. IG received intensive behavioural intervention for weight loss with an energy-reduced MedDiet intervention and PA promotion. CG was encouraged to consume ad libitum MedDiet without PA recommendations. MEASUREMENTS: COVID-19 was ascertained by an independent Event Committee until December 31, 2021. COX regression models compared the effect of PREDIMED-Plus interventions on COVID-19 risk. RESULTS: Overall, 653 COVID-19 incident cases were documented (IG:317; CG:336) over a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.8 (1.3) years (inclusive of 4.0 (1.2) years before community transmission of COVID-19) in both groups. A significantly lowered risk of COVID-19 incidence was not evident in IG, compared to CG (fully-adjusted HR (95% CI): 0.96 (0.81,1.12)). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence to show that an intensive weight-loss intervention encouraging energy-reduced MedDiet and PA significantly lowered COVID-19 risk in older adults with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome in comparison to ad libitum MedDiet. Recommendations to improve adherence to MedDiet provided with or without lifestyle modification suggestions for weight loss may have similar effects in protecting against COVID-19 risk in older adults with high cardiovascular risks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".