Importance of Weight Management in Type 2 Diabetes: Review with Meta-analysis of Clinical Studies
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
Obesity is a major risk factor for development of diabetes, and excessive energy intake is a major contributor to poor glycemic control in Type 2 diabetes. The impact of obesity on risk for diabetes as well as coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors and the benefits of weight loss in decreasing risk for developing diabetes and improving glycemia and CHD risks were reviewed. A systematic review of the medical literature to assess the impact of obesity and weight gain on risk for diabetes and CHD was done. We performed a meta-analysis of the effects of weight loss for obese diabetic individuals. Controlled clinical trials assessing lifestyle changes on risk for developing diabetes and weight loss effects on glycemia and CHD risk factors were reviewed. Obesity and weight gain can increase risk for diabetes by greater than ninetyfold and CHD by about sixfold. Very-low-energy diets (VLED) decrease fasting plasma glucose values by approximately 50% within two weeks and these changes are sustained with continued energy restriction. Twelve weeks of energy-restricted diets were associated with these significant decreases: body weight, 9.6%; fasting plasma glucose, 25.7%; serum cholesterol, 9.2%; serum triglycerides, 26.7%; systolic blood pressure, 8.1%; and diastolic blood pressure, 8.6%. Larger weight losses were associated with larger reductions in these values. The reviewed data suggest that US health care providers should endorse the American Heart Association's and European diabetes associations' recommendations that diabetic persons achieve and maintain a BMI of <or=25 kg/m(2). Weight management may be the most important therapeutic task for most obese Type 2 diabetic individuals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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