Diabetes, trekking and high altitude: recognizing and preparing for the risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although regular physical activity is encouraged for individuals with diabetes, exercise at high altitude increases risk for a number of potential complications. This review highlights our current understanding of the key physiological and clinical issues that accompany high-altitude travel and proposes basic clinical strategies to help overcome obstacles faced by trekkers with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. Although individuals with diabetes have adaptations to the hypoxia of high altitude (increased ventilation, heart rate, blood pressure and hormonal responses), elevated counter-regulatory hormones can impair glycaemic control, particularly if mountain sickness occurs. Moreover, high-altitude-induced anorexia and increased energy expenditure can predispose individuals to dysglycaemia unless careful adjustments in medication are performed. Frequent blood glucose monitoring is imperative, and results must be interpreted with caution because capillary blood glucose meter results may be less accurate at high elevations and low temperatures. It is also important to undergo pre-travel screening to rule out possible contraindications owing to chronic diabetes complications and make well-informed decisions about risks. Despite the risks, healthy, physically fit and well-prepared individuals with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes who are capable of advanced self-management can be encouraged to participate in these activities and attain their summit goals. Moreover, trekking at high altitude can serve as an effective means to engage in physical activity and to increase confidence with fundamental diabetes self-management skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".