Developing an Objective Evaluation Method to Estimate Diabetes Risk in Community-Based Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise interventions often aim to affect abdominal obesity and glucose tolerance, two significant risk factors for type 2 diabetes. Because of limited financial and clinical resources in community and university-based environments, intervention effects are often measured with interviews or questionnaires and correlated with weight loss or body fat indicated by body bioimpedence analysis (BIA). However, self-reported assessments are subject to high levels of bias and low levels of reliability. Because obesity and body fat are correlated with diabetes at different levels in various ethnic groups, data reflecting changes in weight or fat do not necessarily indicate changes in diabetes risk. To determine how exercise interventions affect diabetes risk in community and university-based settings, improved evaluation methods are warranted. METHODS: We compared a noninvasive, objective measurement technique--regional BIA--with whole-body BIA for its ability to assess abdominal obesity and predict glucose tolerance in 39 women. To determine regional BIA's utility in predicting glucose, we tested the association between the regional BIA method and blood glucose levels. RESULTS: Regional BIA estimates of abdominal fat area were significantly correlated (r = 0.554, P < 0.003) with fasting glucose. When waist circumference and family history of diabetes were added to abdominal fat in multiple regression models, the association with glucose increased further (r = 0.701, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regional BIA estimates of abdominal fat may predict fasting glucose better than whole-body BIA as well as provide an objective assessment of changes in diabetes risk achieved through physical activity interventions in community settings.
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 | 0.015 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".