Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption is associated with noncommunicable disease risk, yet no trial has assessed its health impact within the context of national dietary guidelines. In a 2 × 2 crossover randomized controlled feeding trial, 55 adults in England (body mass index ≥25 to <40 kg m −2 , habitual UPF intake ≥50% kcal day −1 ) were provided with two 8-week ad libitum diets following the UK Eatwell Guide: (1) minimally processed food (MPF) and (2) UPF, in a random order. Twenty-eight people were randomized to MPF then UPF, and 27 to UPF then MPF; 50 participants comprised the intention-to-treat sample. The primary outcome was the within-participant difference in percent weight change (%WC) between diets, from baseline to week 8. Participants were blinded to the primary outcome. MPF (%WC, −2.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), −2.99, −1.13) and UPF (%WC, −1.05 (95% CI, −1.98, −0.13)) resulted in weight loss, with significantly greater %WC on MPF (Δ%WC, −1.01 (95% CI, −1.87, −0.14), P = 0.024; Cohen’s d , −0.48 (95% CI, −0.91, −0.06)). Mild gastrointestinal adverse events were common on both diets. Findings indicate greater weight loss on MPF than UPF diets and needing dietary guidance on food processing in addition to existing recommendations. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT05627570 .
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".