Point Accuracy of Interstitial Continuous Glucose Monitoring During Exercise in Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of aerobic exercise have found lower sensor accuracy during exercise. Whether or not resistance exercise would also be associated with lower sensor accuracy has not yet been examined. This study sought to investigate the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring sensor values at rest, during aerobic exercise, and during resistance exercise. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twelve individuals with type 1 diabetes performed 45 min of aerobic exercise, resistance exercise, or no exercise/rest followed by 60 min of recovery while monitored by continuous glucose monitoring systems. RESULTS: Sensors underestimated plasma glucose to the greatest extent during rest (-1.29 ± 1.39 mmol/L, P<0.001) and resistance exercise (-0.71 ± 1.35 mmol/L, P<0.001) and least during aerobic exercise (-0.11 ± 1.71 mmol/L, P=0.416). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal accuracy observed with aerobic exercise might arise from augmented blood flow better equilibrating plasma and interstitial fluid or from the combination of systematic sensor underestimation and sensor lag time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".