The Alberta Diabetes and Physical Activity Trial (ADAPT):A Randomized Trial Evaluating Theory-Based Interventions to Increase Physical Activity in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, most T2DM adults are insufficiently active. PURPOSE: To explore the effectiveness of two innovative/theoretically based behavioral-change strategies to increase PA and reduce hemoglobin A1c (A1c) in T2DM adults. METHODS: Participants (n = 287) were randomly assigned to a control group or an intervention group (i.e., print-based materials/pedometer group or print-based materials/pedometer plus telephone-counseling group). Changes in PA and A1c and other clinical measures were examined by Linear Mixed Model analyses over 18 months, along with moderating effects for gender and age. RESULTS: PA and A1c levels did not significantly change in intervention groups. Step counts significantly increased in the print-based materials and pedometer plus telephone counseling group, for women. CONCLUSIONS: No significant effects were found for PA or A1c levels for T2DM adults. The multi-component strategy including telephone counseling may have potential for women. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00221234.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it