In search of quality evidence for lifestyle management and glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to evaluate the impact of lifestyle behavior modification on glycemic control among children and youth with clinically defined Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies (randomized trials, quasi-experimental studies) evaluating lifestyle (diet and/or physical activity) modification and glycemic control (HbA1c). Our data sources included bibliographic databases (EMBASE, CINAHL®, Cochrane Library, Medline®, PASCAL, PsycINFO®, and Sociological Abstracts), manual reference search, and contact with study authors. Two reviewers independently selected studies that included any intervention targeting diet and/or physical activity alone or in combination as a means to reduce HbA1c in children and youth under the age of 18 with T2D. RESULTS: Our search strategy generated 4,572 citations. The majority of citations were not relevant to the study objective. One study met inclusion criteria. In this retrospective study, morbidly obese youth with T2D were treated with a very low carbohydrate diet. This single study received a quality index score of < 11, indicating poor study quality and thus limiting confidence in the study's conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no high quality evidence to suggest lifestyle modification improves either short- or long-term glycemic control in children and youth with T2D. Additional research is clearly warranted to define optimal lifestyle behaviour strategies for young people with T2D.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".