Resistance Exercise in Already-Active Diabetic Individuals (READI): Study rationale, design and methods for a randomized controlled trial of resistance and aerobic exercise in type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Resistance Exercise in Already Active Diabetic Individuals (READI) trial aimed to examine whether adding a 6-month resistance training program would improve glycemic control (as reflected in reduced HbA₁c) in individuals with type 1 diabetes who were already engaged in aerobic exercise compared to aerobic training alone. After a 5-week run-in period including optimization of diabetes care and low-intensity exercise, 131 physically active adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized to two groups for 22weeks: resistance training three times weekly, or waiting-list control. Both groups maintained the same volume, duration and intensity of aerobic exercise throughout the study as they did at baseline. HbA₁c, body composition, frequency of hypoglycemia, lipids, blood pressure, apolipoproteins B and A-1 (ApoB and ApoA1), the ApoB-ApoA1 ratio, urinary albumin excretion, serum C-reactive protein, free fatty acids, total daily insulin dose, health-related quality of life, cardiorespiratory fitness and musculoskeletal fitness were recorded at baseline, 3 (for some variables), and 6 months. To our knowledge, READI is the only trial to date assessing the incremental health-related impact of adding resistance training for individuals with type 1 diabetes who are already aerobically active. Few exercise trials have been completed in this population, and even fewer have assessed resistance exercise. With recent improvements in the quality of diabetes care, the READI study will provide conclusive evidence to support or refute a major clinically relevant effect of exercise type in the recommendations for physical activity in patients with type 1 diabetes.
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 | 0.034 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".