Exercise And Type 2 Diabetes And Metabolic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review and quantify the effects of different modes of exercise training on measures of glucose control, body composition, and disease-related complications in individuals with metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The online databases PUBMED, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and SCOPUS were searched for RCTs exploring the effects of progressive resistance training (PRT), aerobic exercise, or combined aerobic and PRT in adult type 2 diabetic or metabolic syndrome populations. Studies involving a mixed diet and exercise approach were included if the exercise component of the intervention could be quantified in terms of frequency, intensity, and duration. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using a modified version of the Downs and Black Checklist, and ranked according to levels of evidence. Statistical analyses and meta-analyses were conducted where feasible. RESULTS: An initial literature search conditionally identified 30 RCTs for inclusion. Results are presented separately for metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetic populations. Preliminary data suggest that both forms of exercise, in combination as well as alone, have beneficial effects on diabetic outcomes. There is limited data upon which to formulate conclusions regarding the efficacy of exercise on study outcomes in individuals with metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consistency among studies in the classification system used to identify participants with metabolic syndrome. This may partially explain the limited amount of studies upon which to formulate conclusions in the metabolic syndrome population. The area of exercise in type 2 diabetes is much better developed, with several new RCTs conducted since the last major review of this topic. Evidence-based conclusions regarding a dose-response relationship between exercise and study outcomes are forthcoming.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".