Insulin Pump Therapy Is Associated with Less Post-Exercise Hyperglycemia than Multiple Daily Injections: An Observational Study of Physically Active Type 1 Diabetes Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aerobic exercise typically decreases blood glucose levels in individuals with type 1 diabetes. It is currently unknown if glucose responses to exercise and recovery differ between patients on multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Nineteen (16 male, three female) physically active individuals with type 1 diabetes took part in this observational study. Interstitial glucose levels (blinded) were compared during 45 min of standardized aerobic exercise (cycling or running at 60% peak aerobic capacity) and during 6 h of postexercise recovery between individuals using MDI (n=9) and CSII (n=10) therapy. RESULTS: Both MDI and CSII groups had similar reductions in glucose levels during exercise, but responses in early and late recovery differed (group × time interaction, P<0.01). Participants using MDI had greater increases in glucose throughout recovery compared with individuals with CSII. Two-thirds of the MDI patients experienced late-onset post-exercise hyperglycemia (blood glucose >12 mmol/L) compared with only 1/10(th) of the CSII patients (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals performing regular moderate-to-heavy intensity aerobic exercise, use of CSII helped to limit post-exercise hyperglycemia compared with MDI therapy and is not associated with increased risk for post-exercise late-onset hypoglycemia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".