Review: limited data on dietary treatment of type 2 diabetes show that dietary advice plus exercise appears more beneficial than dietary advice alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moore H, Summerbell C, Hooper L, et al. Dietary advice for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(2):CD004097. Q In adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, what is the effect of different types of dietary advice? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care★★★★★☆☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★☆☆☆ Endocrine ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][1] Data sources: Medline (1966 to October 2003), CINAHL (1982 to October 2003), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1980 to October 2003), Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2003), AMED (1985 to October 2003), bibliographies of relevant articles, and expert contact. ### ![Graphic][2] Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language of ⩾6 months’ duration in which dietary advice was the main intervention in adults aged ⩾18 years with type 2 diabetes. Studies of patients with impaired glucose tolerance, acute illness, or pregnancy or of the effects of medication, fish oils, supplementation, or Chinese medical herbs were excluded. Studies were assessed by 2 independent reviewers for design, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".