MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lifestyle Interventions for Patients With and at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

2013· review· en· W2002039072 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Sumamo Schellenberg, Donna M Dryden, Ben Vandermeer, Christine Ha, Christina Korownyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionInternal medicineClinical trialDiseasePhysical therapyIntensive care medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effect of multifaceted lifestyle interventions on clinically oriented outcomes across a spectrum of metabolic risk factors and abnormal glucose is unclear. PURPOSE: To systematically review the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on minimizing progression to diabetes in high-risk patients or progression to clinical outcomes (such as cardiovascular disease and death) in patients with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: 5 electronic databases (1980 to June 2013), reference lists, and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently identified randomized, controlled trials of lifestyle interventions (≥3 months' duration) that included exercise, diet, and at least 1 other component; the comparator was standard care. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted and a second verified data. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine randomized, controlled trials with patients who were at risk for diabetes and 11 with patients who had diabetes were included. Seven studies reported that lifestyle interventions decreased the risk for diabetes from the end of intervention up to 10 years after it. In patients with diabetes, 2 randomized, controlled trials (which included pharmacotherapy) reported no improvement in all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.06]). Composite outcomes for cardiovascular disease were too heterogeneous to pool. One trial reported improvement in microvascular outcomes at 13-year follow-up. LIMITATION: Most trials focused on surrogate measures (such as weight change, blood pressure, and lipids) for which clinical relevance was unclear. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive lifestyle interventions effectively decrease the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk patients. In patients who already have type 2 diabetes, there is no evidence of reduced all-cause mortality and insufficient evidence to suggest benefit on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations517
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207