dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews of the UK Department of Health. We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Julie Glanville (York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, UK) who reviewed a dra of our MEDLINE search strategy, Claire Stansfield (EPPI-Centre, University of London, UK) who helped to develop and ran our searches of the TRoPHI database, and Helen Morgan (TSC, Cochrane Public Health Review Group) who initially reviewed our overall search strategy. We would like to thank Jodie Doyle (Managing Editor), Liz Waters (Co-ordinating Editor) and their colleagues in the Cochrane Public Health Review Group -especially Jonathan Shepherd (our Contact Editor), Anke Rowher (Methods Advisor), Ruth Turley (Author) and Daniel Francis (Editor). We also greatly appreciated input from Sadequa Shahrook (Research Fellow, Department of Health Policy ,National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan) and anonymous external referees who provided helpful comments on the penultimate and final dra full review, as well as other editors, peer reviewers and critical friends who have provided helpful feedback at various stages.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews packages, product not visible (2 x large opaque packages -not reported how many chocolates in each package), low appearance self esteem; large-packages, product not visible (2 x large opaque packagesnot reported how many chocolates in each package), high appearance self esteem. Participants completed the experiment individually and were seated in a cubicle facing away from a female experimenter. Each participant was told that we were interested in evaluations of a variety of products and that they would be asked to sample one of the products while completing a questionnaire. Finally, participants completed an open-ended suspicion probe assessing what they thought was the purpose of the research. Responses indicated that participants were not cognizant of the hypotheses in this or any of the other studies.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews thing unusual in the study, and if they had any specific goal while participating. None of the participants showed suspicion or identified the true purpose of the study. "Comment:blinding of study participants attempted and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken. Participants were probed for suspicion of study purpose. Very unlikely that key study personnel were blinded, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding of key study personnel reason for missing outcome data for consumption outcome is the study authors' decision to exclude participants with zero consumption from the analysis. The substantial proportion (67 participants, 55% of study sample) of exclusions due to zero consumption and the differential distribution between arms means that the review authors judge that it is plausible that the effect size among these missing data is enough to have had an important impact on the observed effect size Each meal occasion required a 1.
The substantial proportion (4 partici-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews pants, 11% of study sample) of exclusions due to low consumption means that the review authors judge that it is plausible that the effect size among these missing data is enough to have had an important impact on the observed effect size Parents were asked to refrain from giving any food or beverages to their child 2 hours before arrival and to report any deviations from these instructions. A trained sta member sat at the table during the meal to ensure that procedures were followed, including preventing children from sharing foods, noting dropped foods, and redirecting food-related conversation. Children were instructed to eat as little or as much as they liked. "Comment: parents' compliance with the instruction to refrain from giving any food or beverages to their child 2 hours before arrival at each study dinner meal was monitored by parent self report; however, no monitoring results are reported with respect to this instruction.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were men and women between the ages of 18 and 30 years recruited by flyers posted around local universities (Providence, RI) regarding a study investigating the effects of snack food consumption on liking of snack foods. "Record found in ClinicalTrials. gov(Identifier: NCT00200213). Comparison of ClinicalTrials. govrecord with published study report indicates selective outcome reporting. The ClinicalTrials. govrecord states that the study dependent variables [outcomes] would be the amount of grams and kcal consumed from the provided junk [snack] foods over 3 days, while the published study report only reports results for kcal (and KJs) consumed from the provided[junk].
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Exclusion criteria: participants were phone-screened and excluded if they were lactose-intolerant; allergic to or would not eat the provided foods; could not engage in physical activity; were participating in a weight-loss programme and/or taking weight-loss medication or lost 5% of body weight during the past 6 months; unavailable for meetings 1 week during the programme; or were either pregnant, lactating or 6 months postpartum, or planned to become pregnant during the investigation Concurrent intervention components: yes. Behavioural intervention identical in both conditions. Separate 60-minute weekly group sessions for each condition, led by interventionists with expertise in weight management and delivered with the aid of a treatment manual.
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. Inclusion criteria: healthy non-smoking individuals aged 20 to 45 years with a reported BMI less than 40, not dieting to gain or lose weight, not an athlete in training, not taking medications that affect appetite, who have no food restrictions or allergies, eat meals at regular times, and like the foods to be served in the study. Female subjects were also required to not be pregnant or lactating at the time of the study.
No useable selection outcome data could be extracted from van Ittersum 2013 or Wansink 2013 for the same reasons given above. The first row of Table  A2. 2 (below) reproduces the result of the meta-analysis that we conducted to investigate (  1 ) the e ect of exposure to larger versus smaller-sized portions, packages or tableware on quantities of food consumed (see also Summary of findings for the main comparison). This meta-analysis was based on outcome data from a total of 6603 participants (86 independent comparisons). The second Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews The second study with no useable data was van Ittersum 2013. Since this was a small study (e ective sample size of 36), we judge that full integration of outcome data from this study into meta-analyses (  1 ) and (  2 ) will have no substantive impact on current estimates of summary e ect sizes.
1 - 1 or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco (Review) Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. Intervention 1: 500 g portion Italian pasta bake lunch entrée;versus Intervention 2: 700 g portion Italian pasta bake lunch entrée. Comparison 2 -Intervention 1: 700 g portion Italian pasta bake lunch entrée; versus Intervention 2: 900 g portion Italian pasta bake lunch entrée Concurrent intervention components: no.
Mishra 2012 ( 2012 S1) (Continued) Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco (Review) Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. oz bag potato chips, 1 7. 2-oz bag crackers, 1 8-oz bag cookies, 1 9. 4-oz bag candies); large portion-small package (10 1-oz bags potato chips, 9 1. 5-oz bags crackers, 12 1. 25-oz cookies, 11 1. 7-oz bags candies); large portion-large package (2 5-oz bags potato chips, 2 7. 2-oz bags crackers, 2 8-oz bags cookies, 2 9. 4-oz bags candies) Number of comparisons analysed: 2 (portion size; package size) Comparisons analysed: comparison 1 (portion) = Intervention 1: small portion of 4 snack foods (5 1-oz bags potato chips, 5 1.
Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Consumption outcomes only were reported in 59 of 72 included studies (Ahn 2010; Argo 2012 (S1); Argo 2012 (S2); Argo 2012 (S4); Argo 2012 (S5); Burger 2011; Cavanagh 2013; Coelho do Vale 2008 (S2);.
Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011b; Stroebele 2009; van Kleef 2012; van Kleef 2013; Wansink 2001; Wansink 2005b; Wansink 2011b). ; Jarvik 1978 (E2); Je ery 2007; Kelly 2009; Koh 2009; Kral 2004a; Kral 2010; Leahy 2008; Levitsky 2004; Looney 2011; Marchiori 2011; Marchiori 2012a; Marchiori 2012c; Mathias 2012; Mishra 2012 (S1); Mishra 2012 (S2); Raynor 2007; Raynor 2009; Rolls 2000; Rolls 2002; Rolls 2004a; Rolls 2004b; Rolls 2006a; Rolls 2006b; Rolls 2007a; Rolls 2007b (S1); Rolls 2007b (S2); Rolls 2007b (S3); Rolls 2010a (E1); Rolls 2010b (E2); Russell 1980; Scott 2008b (S2); Scott 2008c (S3); Scott 2008d (S4); Shah 2011; Spill 2010; Spill.
of tableware Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was in the range between 120% and 160% of the smaller size; and (2) those in which the larger-sized portion, package or individual unit of food was ≈200% of the smaller size. This analysis therefore excluded outliers (that is, excluding nine independent comparisons in which the larger-sized portion, package, individual unit of food or item of tableware was > 202% of the smaller size, from Coelho do Vale 2008 (S2), Devitt 2004, Marchiori 2012a, Raynor 2007, Raynor 2009, Shah 2011, van Kleef 2013 and Wansink 2011b -range 243% to 2607%). Summary e ect sizes (SMDs), estimated using random-e ects models for each subgroup, were: (1) 0. 25 (95% CI 0. 15 to 0. 35), I 2 = 22% (based on 39 independent comparisons, 2415 participants); and (2) 0.
Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews The final random-e ects model explained 91% of the between-studies variance in e ect sizes for the consumption outcome (R 2 = 90. 77%, P value = 0. 001), leaving 9% unexplained. This model incorporated the following five covariates, each of which had been identified as a potential modifier of the e ect of larger sizes on consumption based on observed associations in univariable meta-regression analyses: study design (within-subjects or between-subjects); FSA 'nutrient profile score'; FSA 'energy density score'; participants' mean age; and a variable di erentiating studies of food products in which the manipulated food(s) comprised all of those available in the study and all were consumed ad libitum from other food studies.
Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Kleef 2012; Wansink 1996a (S1); Wansink 1996b (S2); Wansink 1996c (S4); Wansink 2006; Wansink 2011a (S4). Usable outcome data were available for 13 comparisons, involving 1164 participants, identified from 10 eligible food studies that we assessed as being at unclear or high risk of bias (DiSantis 2013; Fisher 2003; Fisher 2013; Koh 2009; van.
Physiology and Behavior 2009;14(5):609-15. Wagenaar AC, Salois MJ, Komro KA. E ects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction 2009;104(2):179-90. Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Sharafi 2010 {published data only} Yang 2005 {published data only} Anderson 2013 Higgins 2011a a ected energy intake in lean and obese women.
handbook. org. Young 2002 Rayner 2005 Rayner M, Scarborough P, Stockley L, Boxer A. Nutrient Profiles: Further Refinement and Testing of Model SSCg3d. London: Food Young L, Nestle M. The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. American Journal of Public Health 2002;92:246-9. 2013;13:1218. Standards Agency. London, 2005. Hollands 2014 Hollands GJ, Shemilt I, Marteau TM, Jebb SA, Lewis HB, Wei Y, et al. Portion, package or tableware size for changing United Nations 2014 selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. United Nations. Outcome document of the high-level meeting Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. [DOI: of the General Assembly on the comprehensive review and 10. 1002/14651858. CD011045] assessment of the progress achieved in the prevention and Vermeer 2011 {published data only} Vermeer WM, Steenhuis IHM, Leeuwis FH, Heymans MW, Bryden 2013 Holmes 2014 Williams 2003 Bryden A, Petticrew M, Mays N, Eastmure E, Knai C.
" Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews tionnaire. Finally, participants completed an open-ended suspicion probe assessing what they thought was the purpose of the research. Responses indicated that participants were not cognizant of the hypotheses in this or any of the other studies. " Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Ahn 2010 (Continued) Argo 2012 (S1) (Continued) Argo 2012 (S1) (Continued) Argo 2012 (S2) (Continued) Argo 2012 (S4) (Continued) ipant characteristics be- Concurrent intervention components: no Social setting: consuming alone Outcomes tween groups Other bias #2 -Consisten-cy in intervention delivery Study arms: small-package-present (8 x small, opaque packages -11 chocolates in each package), Outcomes reported in study: amount of gumdrops consumed (grams) Selection outcome analysed: N/A Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Low risk communicated caloric content absent, low appearance self esteem; small-package-present (8 x small, Quote: "Each participant was told that we were interested in evaluations of a Number of comparisons analysed: 1 opaque packages -11 chocolates in each package), communicated caloric content absent, high ap-variety of products and that they would be asked to sample one of the prod-ucts while completing a questionnaire.
No specific instructions package), communicated caloric content high, low appearance self esteem; small-package-present (8 Concurrent intervention components: no x small, opaque packages -11 chocolates in each package), communicated caloric content high, high Low risk Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge Consumption outcome Outcomes sessment (detection bias) Consumption outcome High risk Measurement of consumption outcome: objective High risk were provided to participants and therefore monitoring of participants' com-pliance with instructions is not applicable appearance self esteem; small-package-absent (88 x loose, unpackaged chocolates), communicated that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind-Outcomes reported in study: amount of candy-coated chocolates consumed (grams) caloric content absent, low appearance self esteem; small-package-absent (88 x loose, unpackaged ing Methods Participants Argo 2012 (S1) Funding source Notes Summary of risk of bias Consumption outcome Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Risk of bias Bias Methods Argo 2012 (S2) Selective reporting (re-porting bias) Study design: between-subjects randomised controlled trial Setting: laboratory setting Geographical region: Canada Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Unclear risk Unclear risk chocolates), communicated caloric content absent, high appearance self esteem; small-package-ab-Selection outcome analysed: N/A Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A sent (88 x loose, unpackaged chocolates), communicated caloric content low, low appearance self es-Low risk Comment: no missing outcome data for consumption outcome teem; small-package-absent (88 x loose, unpackaged chocolates), communicated caloric content low, high appearance self esteem; small-package-absent (88 x loose, unpackaged chocolates), communi-cated caloric content high, low appearance self esteem; small-package-absent (88 x loose, unpackaged Outcome data for low appearance self esteem and high appearance self esteem participant subgroups collapsed and analysed together (one comparison) Authors' judgement Support for judgement Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Study design: between-subjects randomised controlled trial chocolates), communicated caloric content high, high appearance self esteem Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct-Consumption outcome analysed: amount of candy-coated chocolates consumed (grams) ed in ClinicalTrials.
Insufficient information Number of comparisons analysed: 1 ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat-teem; small-packages, product not visible (8 x small opaque packages -not reported how many choco-Low risk Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' sessment (detection bias) Other bias #1 -Baseline comparability of partic-Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Consumption outcome mance bias) and personnel (perfor-Consumption outcome Blinding of participants form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement lates in each package), low appearance self esteem; small-packages, product not visible (8 x small that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind-Comparisons analysed: intervention 1: small-package-present (bowl containing 5 small, opaque pack-Unclear risk Low risk Comment: no missing outcome data for consumption outcome loose, unpackaged gumdrops) ages each containing 4 gumdrops); versus Intervention 2: small-package-absent (bowl containing 20 of 'low risk' or 'high risk' ing Low risk Number of enrolled participants: 76 female undergraduate students Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 76 (100%) Study completers -mean age (SD): not reported Study completers -sex: female only Study completers -mean BMI kg/m 2 (SD): not reported (neither BMI nor other body weight or body weight status) Quote: "Participants completed the experiment individually and were seated in a cubicle facing away from a female experimenter.
Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Argo 2012 (S4) (Continued) Argo 2012 (S5) (Continued) Bias Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 105 (100%) Authors' judgement Support for judgement Study completers -mean age (SD): not reported Random sequence genera- Unclear risk Comment: method of sequence generation is not described. Insufficient infor- tion (selection bias) Study completers -sex: female only mation about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of 'low Study completers -mean BMI kg/m 2 (SD): not reported (neither BMI nor other body weight or body risk' or 'high risk' Allocation concealment weight status) Unclear risk Comment: method of concealment is not described.
Insufficient information (selection bias) Specific social or cultural characteristics: undergraduate students to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Socio-economic status context: low deprivation Inclusion criteria: female; undergraduate student Exclusion criteria: none reported Manipulated product type: food Manipulation: package size (candy-coated chocolates) Duration of exposure to intervention: ≤ 1 day Social setting: consuming alone Low risk Quote: "Blinding of outcome as-Interventions Blinding of participants and personnel (perfor-mance bias) Consumption outcome Low risk Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge sessment (detection bias) that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind- Consumption outcome ing Incomplete outcome data Low risk Comment: no missing outcome data for consumption outcome (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Selective reporting (re- Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials.
No information pertaining to monitoring of participants' compliance with the instruction to have a typical breakfast on study session days is reported. No monitoring results are reported with respect to this instruction Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Burger 2011 (Continued) Study completers -mean age (SD): 19. 7 (4. 7) Study completers -sex: female only Study completers -mean BMI kg/m 2 (SD): 21. 5 (3. 1) Specific social or cultural characteristics: undergraduate students Socio-economic status context: low deprivation Inclusion criteria: female; undergraduate student; enrolled in a first-year psychology course Exclusion criteria: none reported Interventions Manipulated product type: food Manipulation: portion size Duration of exposure to intervention: ≤ 1 day Social setting: consuming with others Summary of risk of bias Unclear risk Unclear risk Consumption outcome Cavanagh 2013 Methods Study design: between-subjects randomised controlled trial Participants Setting: laboratory setting Geographical region: University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Number of enrolled participants: 96 female undergraduate students Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 96 (100%) Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco (Review) Copyright © 2018 The Authors.
Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cavanagh 2013 (Continued) Consumption outcome analysed: energy intake from macaroni with tomato sauce (kcal) Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Funding source Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project number DP110101124) Notes Outcome data for education, mindfulness and control information leaflet and associated activity par- ticipant subgroups collapsed and analysed together (one comparison). Author contacted to request in- formation missing from the study report -requested information was supplied (February 2014) Risk of bias Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence genera- Unclear risk Comment: method of sequence generation for condition order is not de- tion (selection bias) scribed.