Commercial funding of randomized controlled trials of weight-loss interventions using dietary supplements: A rapid review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutrition research funded by commercial entities may be subject to bias. To date, no study has examined the prevalence of commercial funding in clinical trials of dietary supplements for weight loss. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of commercial funding of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dietary supplement interventions for weight loss. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of English-language RCTs published between 1 January 2023, testing dietary supplements for weight loss. Funding sources were extracted from full texts and categorized as industry, nonprofit, trade association, academic, government, or other. Commercial funders, trade associations, and nonprofits were further reviewed for ties to supplement sales. RESULTS: = 44) reported commercial funding, involving 64 unique funders and 118 instances of commercial involvement. More than half of funders sold dietary supplements or had affiliated companies that did, though some affiliations could not be verified due to limited transparency. No nonprofit funders had ties to supplement sales. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of RCTs evaluating dietary supplements for weight loss reported commercial funding. Further research is needed to assess whether such funding influences study findings.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Incentives · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (narrow) Domain: Incentives · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it