A pilot program for physical exercise promotion in adults with type 1 diabetes: the PEP-1 program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical inactivity is highly common in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) as specific barriers (i.e., hypoglycemia) may prevent them from being active. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of the Physical Exercise Promotion program in type 1 diabetes (PEP-1) program, a group program of physical activity (PA) promotion (intervention) compared with an information leaflet (control), to improve total energy expenditure (TEE) in adults with T1D after 12 weeks. TEE was measured with a motion sensor over a 7-day period at inclusion, after the program (12 weeks) and 1-year after inclusion. The 12 weekly sessions of the program included a 30-min information session (glycemic control and PA) and 60 min of PA. A total of 48 adults, aged 18 to 65 years with a reported PA practice <150 min per week, were recruited (45.8% men; aged 44.6 ± 13.3 years; 8.0% ± 1.1% glycated hemoglobin (A1c)) and randomized in this pilot trial. Ninety percent of participants completed the program and 88% completed the 1-year follow-up. No change was observed for TEE and A1c in both groups. After the 12-week program, the mean peak oxygen uptake increased (14%; p = 0.003) in the intervention group; however, at the 1-year follow-up, it was no longer different from baseline. In the control group, no difference was observed for the peak oxygen uptake. These results suggest that the PEP-1 pilot program could increase cardiorespiratory fitness. However, this benefit is not sustained over a long-term period. The PEP-1 program did not increase TEE in patients with T1D and other strategies remain necessary to counteract physical inactivity in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".