Hockey Fans in Training: A Pilot Pragmatic 1 Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Hockey Fans in Training (Hockey FIT) is a gender-sensitized weight loss and healthy lifestyle program. We investigated 1) feasibility of recruiting and retaining overweight and obese men into a pilot pragmatic randomized controlled trial and 2) potential for Hockey FIT to lead to weight loss and improvements in other outcomes at 12 wk and 12 months.\nMethods Male fans of two ice hockey teams (35–65 yr; body mass index ≥28 kg·m−2) located in Ontario (Canada) were randomized to intervention (Hockey FIT) or comparator (wait-list control). Hockey FIT includes a 12-wk active phase (weekly, coach-led group meetings including provision of dietary information, practice of behavior change techniques, and safe exercise sessions plus incremental pedometer walking) and a 40-wk minimally supported phase (smartphone app for sustaining physical activity, private online social network, standardized e-mails, booster session/reunion). Measurement at baseline and 12 wk (both groups) and 12 months (intervention group only) included clinical outcomes (e.g., weight) and self-reported physical activity, diet, and self-rated health.\nResults Eighty men were recruited in 4 wk; trial retention was >80% at 12 wk and >75% at 12 months. At 12 wk, the intervention group lost 3.6 kg (95% confidence interval, −5.26 to −1.90 kg) more than the comparator group (P< 0.001) and maintained this weight loss to 12 months. The intervention group also demonstrated greater improvements in other clinical measures, physical activity, diet, and self-rated health at 12 wk; most sustained to 12 months.\nConclusions Results suggest feasible recruitment/retention of overweight and obese men in the Hockey FIT program. Results provide evidence for the potential effectiveness of Hockey FIT for weight loss and improved health in at-risk men and, thus, evidence to proceed with a definitive trial.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".