Effects of Exercise on Glycemic Control and Body Mass in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Exercise is widely perceived to be beneficial for glycemic control and weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, clinical trials on the effects of exercise in patients with type 2 diabetes have had small sample sizes and conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and quantify the effect of exercise on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and body mass in patients with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport Discuss, Health Star, Dissertation Abstracts, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for the period up to and including December 2000. Additional data sources included bibliographies of textbooks and articles identified by the database searches. STUDY SELECTION: We selected studies that evaluated the effects of exercise interventions (duration >/=8 weeks) in adults with type 2 diabetes. Fourteen (11 randomized and 3 nonrandomized) controlled trials were included. Studies that included drug cointerventions were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted baseline and postintervention means and SDs for the intervention and control groups. The characteristics of the exercise interventions and the methodological quality of the trials were also extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve aerobic training studies (mean [SD], 3.4 [0.9] times/week for 18 [15] weeks) and 2 resistance training studies (mean [SD], 10 [0.7] exercises, 2.5 [0.7] sets, 13 [0.7] repetitions, 2.5 [0.4] times/week for 15 [10] weeks) were included in the analyses. The weighted mean postintervention HbA(1c) was lower in the exercise groups compared with the control groups (7.65% vs 8.31%; weighted mean difference, -0.66%; P<.001). The difference in postintervention body mass between exercise groups and control groups was not significant (83.02 kg vs 82.48 kg; weighted mean difference, 0.54; P =.76). CONCLUSION: Exercise training reduces HbA(1c) by an amount that should decrease the risk of diabetic complications, but no significantly greater change in body mass was found when exercise groups were compared with control groups.
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 | 0.013 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".