Aerobic plus resistance training was more effective than either alone for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetesCommentary
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
R J Sigal Dr R J Sigal, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; rsigal@ucalgary.ca In patients with type 2 diabetes, how do aerobic (AT), resistance (RT), and combined training compare for reducing haemoglobin (Hb) A1c concentrations? ### Design: randomised controlled trial (Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise [DARE] trial). ### Allocation: concealed. ### Blinding: blinded ({data collectors}* and outcome assessors). ### Follow-up period: 6 months. ### Setting: 8 community-based exercise facilities in Canada. ### Patients: 251 patients (mean age 54 y, 64% men) who had type 2 diabetes for >6 months, had baseline HbA1c concentrations of 6.6% to 9.9%, were previously inactive, and attended 10–12 exercise sessions during a 4-week run-in phase. Exclusion criteria included insulin use; ⩾20 min/session of exercise ⩾2 times/wk or RT in the past 6 months; changes in antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, or hypoglycaemic medication; …
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it