Aerobic plus resistance training was more effective than either alone for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetesCommentary
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".