Skip to content
EvidenceBased
SavedSign in
Skip to content
EvidenceBased
home / studies / PMID 39427878
← Back to study catalog

PubMed study 39427878

Author information is not available in this record

Read on PubMed →

Source-reported research findings

AI-extracted — pending human review. These findings retain the studied context and are not pooled treatment estimates.

Single study

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.

Read the full paper explanation →Original source · Bring into My Profile

Study context, unresolved fields and interpretation limits

What this paper reported

  • Source-anchored extracted record
  • AI-extracted — pending human review
  • Source status is not human clinical review.
  • Authors-reported records; platform synthesis is not enabled.

These records restate the authors’ findings with their own comparisons, source windows and uncertainty. They are pending human review and are not a platform synthesis or recommendation.

What the paper set out to compare
Not available in this record
Who was studied
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.
How it was designed
four_arm_randomized_trial_secondary_analysis
Studied intervention
Not available in this record
Compared against
Not available in this record
What was measured, and when
Four-arm fat-loss comparisons
What the authors reported
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.

Fields marked not available are not encoded in this source record and have not been inferred.

Fields awaiting review

Supported findings remain available. These field records keep unresolved context separate.

intervention — not extractable by the current method
This field is not yet encoded in a verified structured record; the source may contain supported information. Check this source version and record its supported context, retaining the study comparisons and uncertainty. Check the source
Review history · version 1

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e

No resolution has been recorded.

comparator — not extractable by the current method
This field is not yet encoded in a verified structured record; the source may contain supported information. Check this source version and record its supported context, retaining the study comparisons and uncertainty. Check the source
Review history · version 1

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e

No resolution has been recorded.

sample Size — not extractable by the current method
This field is not yet encoded in a verified structured record; the source may contain supported information. Check this source version and record its supported context, retaining the study comparisons and uncertainty. Check the source
Review history · version 1

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e

No resolution has been recorded.

analysis Population — not extractable by the current method
This field is not yet encoded in a verified structured record; the source may contain supported information. Check this source version and record its supported context, retaining the study comparisons and uncertainty. Check the source
Review history · version 1

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e

No resolution has been recorded.

adjustment — not extractable by the current method
This field is not yet encoded in a verified structured record; the source may contain supported information. Check this source version and record its supported context, retaining the study comparisons and uncertainty. Check the source
Review history · version 1

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e

No resolution has been recorded.

subgroup — not extractable by the current method
This field is not yet encoded in a verified structured record; the source may contain supported information. Check this source version and record its supported context, retaining the study comparisons and uncertainty. Check the source
Review history · version 1

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e

No resolution has been recorded.

interaction — not extractable by the current method
This field is not yet encoded in a verified structured record; the source may contain supported information. Check this source version and record its supported context, retaining the study comparisons and uncertainty. Check the source
Review history · version 1

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e

No resolution has been recorded.

Field review history

population — Supported field recorded in a source finding

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e · Check the source

Version 2: verified supported · finding finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v1

outcomes — Supported field recorded in a source finding

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e · Check the source

Version 2: verified supported · finding finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v1

timepoint — Supported field recorded in a source finding

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e · Check the source

Version 2: verified supported · finding finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v1

contrast — Supported field recorded in a source finding

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e · Check the source

Version 2: verified supported · finding finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v1

uncertainty — Supported field recorded in a source finding

Source version: pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e · Check the source

Version 2: verified supported · finding finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v1

Limitations and interpretation bounds

  • 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.

Source-linked brief with study context, limitations and exact record versions.

PubMed study 39427878

Substrate paper brief · PMID 39427878

Study publication year: Not available in this record. Retrieved: 2026-10-16T23:11:27.563Z.

https://evidencebased.info/studies/39427878
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39427878/

This is a dated public record snapshot. Check the canonical study page for later publication, withdrawal or review changes. It is not a recommendation or human clinical review.

Quick takeaway

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.

    What this paper studied

    These records restate the authors’ findings with their own comparisons, source windows and uncertainty. They are pending human review and are not a platform synthesis or recommendation.

    • AI-extracted — pending human review
    • Source status is not human clinical review.
    • Authors-reported records; platform synthesis is not enabled.
    What the paper set out to compare
    Not available in this record
    Who was studied
    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.
    How it was designed
    four_arm_randomized_trial_secondary_analysis
    Studied intervention
    Not available in this record
    Compared against
    Not available in this record
    What was measured, and when
    Four-arm fat-loss comparisons
    What the authors reported
    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.

    Fields marked not available are not encoded in this source record and have not been inferred.

    Study limitations and interpretation bounds

    • 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.

    Four-arm fat-loss comparisons

    • AI-extracted — pending human review
    • Source-authored record; platform synthesis is not enabled for this record.
    • Publication status: published.

    Exact source-reported results

    Each record retains its source-reported context and uncertainty.

    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

    • 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.

    Sources and exact versions

    Stable finding ID
    finding:examine2025:39427878:1
    Source document version
    pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e
    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
    • https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=39427878&rettype=abstract&retmode=text — document version pubmed:39427878:abstract:sha256:17c215f80d72c0bff6d60a955afec9c1f4ae82e17813224a428cc538bf89e03e — 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
    Finding destinations and coverage · 1 records

    One finding, several views

    Where these findings appear

    1. Versioned source
    2. Admitted finding
    3. Guarded views

    A finding keeps the same identity, version and evidence hash across its views. Source status is not human clinical review.

    Eligibility is not a live presence check. Contextual links below have a current guarded scope match. A linked page’s filters, safety checks and availability can still prevent it from displaying this finding. A match does not establish an individual benefit.

    Multiple source-reported outcomes finding

    Finding version 2 · Paper version 3

    AI-extracted — pending human review

    Direct finding access

    This page shows the admitted finding. Other access paths recheck source authority when opened.

    Eligible contextual views

    Private save option

    Bring into My Profile

    Review the current evidence and explicitly choose whether to save it. This public page does not know whether anyone has saved it. Nothing is saved by opening the link.

    Check actual public destinations

    Eligibility and displayed coverage are different. This optional check reads the public responses below without signing in. It checks this exact finding version and hash, and rechecks current source authority before and after. Proven nonmatches are not coverage gaps; unavailable scope reads leave applicability unknown. Those destinations are not fetched. It cannot inspect private saves.

    No actual-presence claim is made until you run the check.

    Exact finding and paper identity
    Stable finding
    finding:examine2025:39427878:1
    Finding revision
    finding:examine2025:39427878:1:v2
    Finding evidence hash
    sha256:0824e4729c3ba29467ef20f525122a084683c294902222ce7cb49818344cc756
    Paper version hash
    sha256:a3554d0839e13991d734b5b285aba1f60f9749cfae423f6da442b652db6fb500
    Explore related research

    No related studies are linked to these findings yet.

    Additional extraction and platform record details

    These additional records are separate from the source-reported findings above. Platform estimates and grades are not results reported by this paper.

    Provisional evidence

    Existing platform assessment, not a source-reported finding: the values below are produced by EvidenceBased's own synthesis and certainty engines.

    Search coverage: incomplete

    Provisional certainty: cannot yet be calculated

    Display grade: not assigned

    Review status: AI-processed — pending human review

    AI-processed extraction

    Document integrity: current

    Partial extraction: the arms shown may be a subset of the study arms. Read the source for the complete study design.

    Arms

      Results

      OutcomeEstimateSource anchor

      Outcome mapping proposals

        Machine-readable paper projection →