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 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 | 0.021 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".