dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ported. Whilst not explicitly reported, it is likely that participants' compliance with the instruction not to share food was monitored by a research assistant who was present for the duration of each lunch session; however, no monitoring results are reported with respect to this instruction. No further specific instructions were provided to participants or providers 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. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Huss 2013 (Continued) Huss 2013 (Continued) Jarvik 1978 (E1) (Continued) Funding source Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) University of Minnesota Obesity Prevention Center; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Funding source Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Not reported Kidney Diseases (Grant No.
" (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Consumption outcome Socio-economic status context: low deprivation Comment: the reason for missing outcome data is unlikely to be related to by lack Inclusion criteria: current smoker; patient at the Brentwood Veterans Administration Hospital, West Los of blinding of key study personnel consumption outcome Selective reporting (re-porting bias) Blinding of outcome as-Selective reporting (re-sessment (detection bias) porting bias) Interventions Consumption outcome Unclear risk Angeles, CA, USA Low risk Unclear risk Exclusion criteria: none reported Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct-ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat-Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct-that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind-ed in ClinicalTrials.
gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat-form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' ing form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement Manipulated product type: tobacco of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Other bias #1 -Baseline Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Other bias #1 -Baseline comparability of partic-ipant characteristics be-Consumption outcome comparability of partic-ipant characteristics be-tween groups Selective reporting (re-tween groups Low risk Low risk Manipulation: individual unit size Quote: "The between-subject factors were. 4-week menu rotation. ". Comment: no missing outcome data for consumption outcome Unclear risk Comment: study uses a within-subjects design.
It is therefore unlikely that any differences between condition orders in terms ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat-to control for condition order. Risk of bias due to period effects is therefore un-Study arms: one eighth-length cigarettes; one quarter-length cigarettes; half-length cigarettes; full-of 'low risk' or 'high risk' length cigarettes form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement clear. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Other bias #1 -Baseline of unmeasured pre-condition participant 'state' characteristics influenced the measured outcomes. Risk of bias due to period effects is therefore judged low Number of comparisons analysed: 3 Unclear risk Comment: study uses a within-subjects design.
for record(s) containing details of study protocol conducted in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Record found in ClinicalTrials. gov and duplicate record found in ICTRP (Identifier: NCT00936507). Comparison of ClinicalTrials. gov/ICTRP records with published study report indicates no selective outcome reporting Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Looney 2011 (Continued) Selective reporting (re-porting bias) Comment: search Other bias #1 -Baseline Low risk comparability of partic- ipant characteristics be- tween groups 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.
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 (21 participants, 39% 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 Blinding of outcome as- 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 (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Comment: the Selective reporting (re-High risk Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials.
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. 4 in), Outcomes reported in study: energy intake from cookies (kcal); amount of cookies consumed (grams); rectangular and consisting of several layers of wafers filled with milk chocolate topping Concurrent intervention components: no number of cookies consumed (N) Selection outcome analysed: N/A Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Consumption outcome analysed: energy intake from cookies (kcal) Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) National Research Fund (Luxembourg) Author contacted to request information missing from the study report -requested information was supplied (February 2014) Authors' judgement Support for judgement Unclear risk Comment: method of sequence generation is not described.
As a result, data from 77 children (out of 85) were analysed. " Trusted evidence. Random sequence genera-Outcomes Funding source Notes Risk of bias Bias tion (selection bias) Allocation concealment (selection bias) Blinding of participants and personnel (perfor-mance bias) Consumption outcome Blinding of outcome as-sessment (detection bias) Consumption outcome Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Marchiori 2012c (Continued) Cochrane Library Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Analysis does not appear to account for cluster allocation, as the statistical model does not appear to include any covariate related to cluster assignment Participants Setting: laboratory setting Geographical region: greater metropolitan area of Philadelphia, PA, USA Number of enrolled participants: 38 children Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 30 (79%) Study completers -mean age (SD): 5.
Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Consumption outcome analysed: energy intake from total dinner meal (kcal) Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Funding source US National Institutes of Health (Grant R01 DK071095) Notes Outcome data for small (75 g) and large (150 g) size vegetable portion participant subgroups collapsed and analysed together (one comparison) Risk of bias Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence genera-tion (selection bias) Unclear risk Comment: method of sequence generation for condition order is not de-scribed. Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Allocation concealment Portion, Cochrane (selection bias).
Mishra 2012 (S1) Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco (Review) 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. Children's compliance with an instruction not to share foods was monitored and enforced by a trained sta member. No further specific instructions were provided to participants, other than the instruction to children to eat as little or as much as they liked Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Trusted evidence.
Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Mathias 2012 (Continued) Study completers -sex: not reported Study completers -mean BMI kg/m 2 (SD): not reported (neither BMI nor other body weight or body weight status) Selective reporting (re- Unclear risk Specific social or cultural characteristics: none Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat-form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement Socio-economic status context: low deprivation of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Inclusion criteria: none reported Other bias #1 -Baseline Unclear risk Exclusion criteria: none reported Comment: study uses a within-subjects design.
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] Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Raynor 2007 (Continued) Comment: blinding of study participants attempted and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.
" Comment: reasons for exclusion from analysis are per protocol and therefore do not raise concerns about risk of attrition bias due to handing of exclusions Selective reporting (re- High risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conducted porting bias) in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Funding source National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Notes Manipulated both portion and package size. Comparisons were analysed for both portion size and package size Risk of bias Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence genera- Unclear risk Comment: method of sequence generation is not described. Insufficient infor- tion (selection bias) mation about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Allocation concealment Unclear risk Comment: method of concealment is not described.
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. 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.
" Raynor 2009 (Continued) Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Quote: "Participants were then randomized using a random number table into one of the two treatment groups (Single-Serving or Standard). " Comment: unconcealed procedure and investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments Blinding of participants and personnel (perfor-mance bias) Consumption outcome Low risk Quote: "Interventionists were not blinded to study condition as they distrib-uted food weekly to participants. " Comment: blinding of study participants at-tempted and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken. 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 person-nel Blinding of outcome as-sessment (detection bias) Consumption outcome Low risk Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind-ing Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Low risk Quote: "Comment: reason for missing outcome data is unlikely to be related to con-sumption outcome Selective reporting (re-porting bias) Low risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conducted in ClinicalTrials.
gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Record found in ClinicalTrials. gov (Identifier: NCT00200239). Compar-ison of ClinicalTrials. gov/ICTRP records with published study report indicates no selective outcome reporting Other bias #1 -Baseline comparability of partic-ipant characteristics be-Portion, Cochrane Measurement of selection outcome: N/A tween groups.
Rolls 2004a 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. 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 Cochrane Library Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Trusted evidence.
Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Rolls 2002 (Continued) Rolls 2004a (Continued) Socio-economic status context: low deprivation Exclusion criteria: score on the Eating Attitudes Test of 20 or more (indicating a potential eating distur- bance) or their score on the Zung Self-Rating Scale was 40 or more (indicating a likelihood of depres- sion) Interventions Manipulated product type: food Manipulation: portion size Duration of exposure to intervention: ≤ 1 day Social setting: consuming alone Study arms: 6-inch sandwich (275 g); 8-inch sandwich (376 g); 10-inch sandwich (458 g); 12-inch sand- wich (550 g) Number of comparisons analysed: 3 Comparisons analysed: Comparison 1 = Intervention 1: 6-inch sandwich (275 g); versus Intervention 2: 8-inch sandwich (376 g); Comparison 2 = Intervention 1: 8-inch sandwich (376 g); versus Intervention 2: 10-inch sandwich (458 g); Comparison 3 = Intervention 1: 10-inch sandwich (458 g); versus Intervention 2: 12-inch sandwich (550 g) Concurrent intervention components: no Outcomes Outcomes reported in study: total energy intake (kcal) from lunch meal; weight intake (g) Selection outcome analysed: N/A Measurement of selection outcome: N/A Summary of risk of bias Unclear risk Timing of selection outcome measurement: N/A Unclear risk Consumption outcome Consumption outcome analysed: energy intake from total lunch meal (kcal) Measurement of consumption outcome: objective Timing of consumption outcome measurement: immediate (≤ 1 day) Methods Funding source Study design: within-subjects randomised controlled trial Not stated Participants Notes Setting: laboratory setting Study authors contacted for missing data with additional data received March 2014 Risk of bias Geographical region: Pennsylvania, USA Bias Number of enrolled participants: 76 adults Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence genera- Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: 75 (98.
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. Summary of risk of bias Consumption outcome Rolls 2004b (Continued) Methods Participants Rolls 2006a Library Risk of bias Bias Random sequence genera-Trusted evidence. Unclear risk Study design: within-subjects randomised controlled trial Unclear risk Setting: laboratory setting Geographical region: Pennsylvania, USA Number of enrolled participants: 16 adult females; 16 adult males Number (%) of enrolled participants completing the study: adult females = 16 (100%); adult males = 16 (100%) Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Authors' judgement Support for judgement tion (selection bias) Unclear risk Comment: method of sequence generation for condition order is not de-scribed.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Blinding of outcome as-sessment (detection bias) Consumption outcome Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Consumption outcome Selective reporting (re-porting bias) Other bias #1 -Baseline comparability of partic-ipant characteristics be-tween groups Interventions Outcomes Funding source Notes Risk of bias Bias Random sequence genera-tion (selection bias) Allocation concealment (selection bias) Blinding of participants Quote: "Rolls 2006b (Continued) Low risk Comment: no blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blind-ing Low risk Comment: no missing outcome data for consumption outcome Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct-ed in ClinicalTrials.
Author contact confirmed condition order was randomised but no further details (13 March 2013). Insuffi-cient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Unclear risk and personnel (perfor- mance bias) Comment: study uses a within-subjects design. Differences between conditions in terms of measured pre-condition participant 'state' characteristics are partially reported, but not reported whether there were differences between condition orders in terms of measured pre-condition participant 'state' Rolls 2006a (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.
1 participant, 4% of study sample) of exclusions due to low consumption means that it is unclear that the outcome is at high risk of bias. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Selective reporting (re- Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat- form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk'.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews tential carry-over effects between conditions). 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 Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Rolls 2007a (Continued) Blinding of outcome as- 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 Quote: "Forty-seven participants were enrolled, but two participants withdrew (attrition bias) from the study after attending one meal. " Consumption outcome Comment: the reason(s) for participants' withdrawal after attending one meal not provided, so it is unclear whether this reason for exclusion is likely to be related to the study outcome or not.
The low proportion (2 participants, 4% of study sample) of exclusions means that the review authors judge that the plausible effect size among missing outcomes is unlikely to be enough to have an important impact on the observed effect size Selective reporting (re- Unclear risk Comment: search for record(s) containing details of study protocol conduct- porting bias) ed in ClinicalTrials. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Plat- form (ICTRP). No records found. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Insufficient information to per- mit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk' Other bias #2 -Consisten- Unclear risk cy in intervention delivery Quote: "Participants were instructed not to consume any foods or caloric beverages other than those provided by the laboratory during each 11-day session.