A 6-month randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of telenutrition <i>v</i>. telenutrition supported by telemonitoring and health coaching in a weight loss programme: a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the main challenges in weight loss programmes is compliance with diet and achievement of sustainable changes in eating habits and lifestyles. Most clients desire to lose weight quickly, rather than looking at long-term changes. The literature suggests applying telenutrition, owing to its convenience and easy access in combination with both telemonitoring and health coaching, where confounding factors in the diet are tackled. A 6-month randomised controlled trial will be conducted to compare the effectiveness of telenutrition v. telenutrition supported by weekly telemonitoring and monthly health coaching in a weight loss programme. Participants are obese and overweight adults of both sex groups, aged 20–50 years who will be randomised to join a control or an intervention group. A total of three visits will be scheduled for all participants: at baseline, after three months and after six months. This study aims to answer the question of whether participants following a weight loss programme supported by telemonitoring and health coaching will increase their weight loss and compliance to the diet in comparison with the control group. This will be the first trial to assess the impact of integrating telemonitoring and health coaching in weight loss programmes, including the evaluation of associated confounding factors such as general nutrition education, eating behaviour, sensory modalities and hunger, and stress. This trial will support dietary weight loss programmes, contribute to the emerging field of telenutrition and provide advice for clinical dietitians and health coaches to work together to help individuals lose and maintain weight.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".