Four-arm fat-loss comparisons
- AI-extracted — pending human review
- Source-authored record; platform synthesis is not enabled for this record.
- Publication status: published.
Randomized arm counts: CON 21; HED 21; MED 20; DCON 20.
four arm randomized trial secondary analysis. 82 randomized participants. Population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Analysis population: unclear. Fields not recorded or incorporated in this summary may still be present in the paper.
That’s the gist — a fine place to stop. This describes the studied groups, not personal suitability.
Understand the result
The full source record is retained in words with its study context and uncertainty. No derived comparison or combined axis is added.
- Who & when
- four arm randomized trial secondary analysis. 82 randomized participants. Population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Analysis population: unclear. Fields not recorded or incorporated in this summary may still be present in the paper.
- Source
- PMID 39427878 · finding version 2
Each record retains its source-reported context and uncertainty.
Same finding version 2; paper version 3. Exact identity, status and limitations remain in this article.
Exact source-reported statements
four arm randomized trial secondary analysis. 82 randomized participants. Population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Analysis population: unclear. Fields not recorded or incorporated in this summary may still be present in the paper.
- Randomized arm counts: CON 21; HED 21; MED 20; DCON 20.
- fat mass percentage — DCON versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -3.5 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -5.6 to -1.4.
- fat mass percentage — MED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -6.3 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -8.4 to -4.1.
- fat mass percentage — HED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -10.2 to -5.8.
- fat mass percentage — MED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -2.8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -4.9 to -0.7.
- fat mass percentage — HED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -4.5 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -6.6 to -2.4.
- fat mass percentage — HED versus MED; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -1.8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -3.9 to 0.4.
- visceral adipose tissue volume — DCON versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -666 cm³; 95% CI -912.8 to -385.1.
- visceral adipose tissue volume — MED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1264 cm³; 95% CI -1679.6 to -655.9.
- visceral adipose tissue volume — HED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1786.4 cm³; 95% CI -2264.6 to -1321.2.
- visceral adipose tissue volume — HED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1120.4 cm³; 95% CI -1746.6 to -639.4.
- Additional authors-reported context: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Comparison mapping remains unresolved.
- Additional authors-reported context: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Comparison mapping remains unresolved.
Each record retains its source-reported context and uncertainty. No trial arms or new effect estimates are constructed.
Studied context
| Authors-reported finding | Randomized arm counts: CON 21; HED 21; MED 20; DCON 20. |
|---|---|
| Authors-reported finding | fat mass percentage — DCON versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -3.5 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -5.6 to -1.4. |
| Authors-reported finding | fat mass percentage — MED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -6.3 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -8.4 to -4.1. |
| Authors-reported finding | fat mass percentage — HED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -10.2 to -5.8. |
| Authors-reported finding | fat mass percentage — MED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -2.8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -4.9 to -0.7. |
| Authors-reported finding | fat mass percentage — HED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -4.5 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -6.6 to -2.4. |
| Authors-reported finding | fat mass percentage — HED versus MED; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -1.8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -3.9 to 0.4. |
| Authors-reported finding | visceral adipose tissue volume — DCON versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -666 cm³; 95% CI -912.8 to -385.1. |
| Authors-reported finding | visceral adipose tissue volume — MED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1264 cm³; 95% CI -1679.6 to -655.9. |
| Authors-reported finding | visceral adipose tissue volume — HED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1786.4 cm³; 95% CI -2264.6 to -1321.2. |
| Authors-reported finding | visceral adipose tissue volume — HED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1120.4 cm³; 95% CI -1746.6 to -639.4. |
| Authors-reported finding | Additional authors-reported context: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Comparison mapping remains unresolved. |
| Authors-reported finding | Additional authors-reported context: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Comparison mapping remains unresolved. |
Limitations reported for this finding
- Authors-reported study comparisons and phases; no platform pooling.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Only independently source-stated VAT numeric contrasts are represented.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Only independently source-stated VAT numeric contrasts are represented.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Only independently source-stated VAT numeric contrasts are represented.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
- Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial.
- Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction.
- Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes.
- Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution.
- Only independently source-stated VAT numeric contrasts are represented.
- Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes.
- Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred.
- Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review.
You can stop here, or inspect the evidence and its original sources.
- Randomized arm counts: CON 21; HED 21; MED 20; DCON 20.
- fat mass percentage — DCON versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -3.5 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -5.6 to -1.4.
- fat mass percentage — MED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -6.3 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -8.4 to -4.1.
- fat mass percentage — HED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -10.2 to -5.8.
- fat mass percentage — MED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -2.8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -4.9 to -0.7.
- fat mass percentage — HED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -4.5 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -6.6 to -2.4.
- fat mass percentage — HED versus MED; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -1.8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -3.9 to 0.4.
- visceral adipose tissue volume — DCON versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -666 cm³; 95% CI -912.8 to -385.1.
- visceral adipose tissue volume — MED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1264 cm³; 95% CI -1679.6 to -655.9.
- visceral adipose tissue volume — HED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1786.4 cm³; 95% CI -2264.6 to -1321.2.
- visceral adipose tissue volume — HED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1120.4 cm³; 95% CI -1746.6 to -639.4.
- Additional authors-reported context: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Comparison mapping remains unresolved.
- Additional authors-reported context: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Comparison mapping remains unresolved.
four arm randomized trial secondary analysis. 82 randomized participants. Population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Analysis population: unclear. Fields not recorded or incorporated in this summary may still be present in the paper.
Source and extraction detail
- Finding revision
- finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v2
- Finding version
- 2
- Finding content hash
- sha256:0824e4729c3ba29467ef20f525122a084683c294902222ce7cb49818344cc756
- Paper version
- 3
- Paper version content hash
- sha256:a3554d0839e13991d734b5b285aba1f60f9749cfae423f6da442b652db6fb500
- Source content hash
- sha256:9ba63140dcc2190fe6c2e1dc2e929ea14f8f5218f758f11d11df9b196302f5ef
- Extraction policy
- context164-source-topic-policy:d2c863b8d9f94acf3a7378bfa6e49a23bd72eea4408a689b542d3f7244fd7bfb
- Extraction policy hash
- sha256:d2c863b8d9f94acf3a7378bfa6e49a23bd72eea4408a689b542d3f7244fd7bfb
- Extraction method version
- source-reported-records/v1
- Field locators
- study_comparisons.clause0 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2354-2389
Source documents
- https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text — sha256:9ba63140dcc2190fe6c2e1dc2e929ea14f8f5218f758f11d11df9b196302f5ef (study_comparisons.clause0 → abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1 → abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2 → abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3 → abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4 → abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5 → abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6 → abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7 → abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8 → abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9 → abstract:2354-2389; study_comparisons.clause0 → abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1 → abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2 → abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3 → abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4 → abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5 → abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6 → abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7 → abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8 → abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9 → abstract:2354-2389; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 1; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 2; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 3; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 4; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 5; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 6; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 7; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 8; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 9; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 10; study_comparisons.clause0 → abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1 → abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2 → abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3 → abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4 → abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5 → abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6 → abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7 → abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8 → abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9 → abstract:2354-2389; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 1; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 2; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 3; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 4; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 5; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 6; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 7; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 8; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 9; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 10; study_comparisons.clause0 → abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1 → abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2 → abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3 → abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4 → abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5 → abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6 → abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7 → abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8 → abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9 → abstract:2354-2389; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 1; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 2; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 3; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 4; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 5; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 6; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 7; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 8; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 9; sourceTopic.typedRole → Abstract, source context clause 10)
Read the full paper explanation
Optional audio and transcript
Audio reading
Read this exact transcript with an on-device browser voice. Checks the current public source version and starts only when you press Play; no audio provider or upload. Availability depends on this browser’s local voices.
Checking for a local voice…
Complete versioned transcript
Versioned snapshot of this displayed record. It may no longer be current; audio requires a successful current-version check.
Four-arm fat-loss comparisons Stable finding ID: finding:examine2025:39427878:1. Finding version: 2. Revision: finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v2. Content hash: sha256:0824e4729c3ba29467ef20f525122a084683c294902222ce7cb49818344cc756. Paper version: 3. Paper content hash: sha256:a3554d0839e13991d734b5b285aba1f60f9749cfae423f6da442b652db6fb500. AI-extracted — pending human review Source-authored record; platform synthesis is not enabled for this record. Publication status: published. Randomized arm counts: CON 21; HED 21; MED 20; DCON 20. four arm randomized trial secondary analysis. 82 randomized participants. Population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Analysis population: unclear. Fields not recorded or incorporated in this summary may still be present in the paper. Authors-reported finding: Randomized arm counts: CON 21; HED 21; MED 20; DCON 20.. Authors-reported finding: fat mass percentage — DCON versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -3.5 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -5.6 to -1.4.. Authors-reported finding: fat mass percentage — MED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -6.3 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -8.4 to -4.1.. Authors-reported finding: fat mass percentage — HED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -10.2 to -5.8.. Authors-reported finding: fat mass percentage — MED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -2.8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -4.9 to -0.7.. Authors-reported finding: fat mass percentage — HED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -4.5 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -6.6 to -2.4.. Authors-reported finding: fat mass percentage — HED versus MED; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported MD -1.8 fat-mass percentage points; 95% CI -3.9 to 0.4.. Authors-reported finding: visceral adipose tissue volume — DCON versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -666 cm³; 95% CI -912.8 to -385.1.. Authors-reported finding: visceral adipose tissue volume — MED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1264 cm³; 95% CI -1679.6 to -655.9.. Authors-reported finding: visceral adipose tissue volume — HED versus CON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1786.4 cm³; 95% CI -2264.6 to -1321.2.. Authors-reported finding: visceral adipose tissue volume — HED versus DCON; 16 weeks randomized allocation. Authors reported difference -1120.4 cm³; 95% CI -1746.6 to -639.4.. Authors-reported finding: Additional authors-reported context: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Comparison mapping remains unresolved.. Authors-reported finding: Additional authors-reported context: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Comparison mapping remains unresolved.. Each record retains its source-reported context and uncertainty. Reported limitation: Authors-reported study comparisons and phases; no platform pooling. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Only independently source-stated VAT numeric contrasts are represented. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Only independently source-stated VAT numeric contrasts are represented. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Only independently source-stated VAT numeric contrasts are represented. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Reported limitation: Secondary analysis of a four-arm randomized trial. Reported limitation: Adjustment and analysis population are not established by this extraction. Reported limitation: Allocation counts are not analyzed sample sizes. Reported limitation: Authors-reported contrasts; no platform synthesis or component-level attribution. Reported limitation: Only independently source-stated VAT numeric contrasts are represented. Reported limitation: Study population: persons living with type 2 diabetes. Reported limitation: Authors report no differences in the remaining VAT comparisons; named contrast mapping is not extracted, and no equivalence is inferred. Reported limitation: Authors report fat-free mass decrease in DCON and MED and preservation in HED, with an HED reported estimate of -0.2% (95% CI -2% to 1.7%). Its exact estimand and comparison are not encoded as a numeric contrast and require review. Finding revision: finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v2. Finding version: 2. Finding content hash: sha256:0824e4729c3ba29467ef20f525122a084683c294902222ce7cb49818344cc756. Paper version: 3. Paper version content hash: sha256:a3554d0839e13991d734b5b285aba1f60f9749cfae423f6da442b652db6fb500. Source content hash: sha256:9ba63140dcc2190fe6c2e1dc2e929ea14f8f5218f758f11d11df9b196302f5ef. Extraction policy: context164-source-topic-policy:d2c863b8d9f94acf3a7378bfa6e49a23bd72eea4408a689b542d3f7244fd7bfb. Extraction policy hash: sha256:d2c863b8d9f94acf3a7378bfa6e49a23bd72eea4408a689b542d3f7244fd7bfb. Extraction method version: source-reported-records/v1. Field locators: study_comparisons.clause0 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9 → https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text: abstract:2354-2389. Source document: https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text. Source hash: sha256:9ba63140dcc2190fe6c2e1dc2e929ea14f8f5218f758f11d11df9b196302f5ef. Locators: study_comparisons.clause0: abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1: abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2: abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3: abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4: abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5: abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6: abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7: abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8: abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9: abstract:2354-2389; study_comparisons.clause0: abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1: abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2: abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3: abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4: abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5: abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6: abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7: abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8: abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9: abstract:2354-2389; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 1; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 2; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 3; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 4; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 5; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 6; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 7; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 8; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 9; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 10; study_comparisons.clause0: abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1: abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2: abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3: abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4: abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5: abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6: abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7: abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8: abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9: abstract:2354-2389; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 1; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 2; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 3; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 4; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 5; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 6; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 7; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 8; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 9; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 10; study_comparisons.clause0: abstract:2293-2639; study_comparisons.clause1: abstract:2640-2690; study_comparisons.clause2: abstract:2790-3004; study_comparisons.clause3: abstract:3005-3131; study_comparisons.clause4: abstract:3132-3207; study_comparisons.clause5: abstract:2691-2780; study_comparisons.clause6: abstract:3329-3558; study_comparisons.clause7: abstract:3559-3710; study_comparisons.clause8: abstract:3208-3328; study_comparisons.clause9: abstract:2354-2389; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 1; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 2; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 3; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 4; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 5; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 6; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 7; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 8; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 9; sourceTopic.typedRole: Abstract, source context clause 10. Canonical paper: /studies/39427878. This is a reading of this version, not a clinical recommendation. Check the current paper page for updates.
Read the full paper explanation →Original source · Bring into My Profile