Ambulatory blood glucose measurement, dietary composition and physical activity levels in otherwise healthy women reporting symptoms that they attribute to hypoglycaemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactive hypoglycaemia (RH) is a condition that has been popularised in the media and lay literature, particularly that targeting women, over the past 30 years. The objective of the present study was to investigate whether a non-patient group reporting symptoms that they attributed to a low blood glucose level would demonstrate biochemical hypoglycaemia when symptomatic and whether their habitual diet and activity level differed from those of controls. Thirty non-obese, healthy women (aged 19-45 years) reporting symptoms more than once a week that they attributed to hypoglycaemia (RH group), and eighteen controls, measured their finger-prick blood glucose level 3 h after breakfast and lunch, and recorded their diet and activity daily for 7 d. The RH group also measured their blood glucose when symptoms were being experienced. Symptoms less than 4 h after eating were classed as postprandial. The mean postprandial blood glucose level in the RH group when asymptomatic (4.66 (SEM 0.08) mmol/l) was significantly lower than that of controls (5.05 (SEM 0.11) mmol/l; P<0.01). Symptoms occurred 2.6 (SEM 0.13) h after eating, at a lower blood glucose level (4.18 (SEM 0.10) mmol/l; P<0.001) than when the women were asymptomatic. On symptomatic days, the RH group were more physically active than the controls (1.64 (SEM 0.04) v. 1.50 (SEM 0.03) multiples of resting energy expenditure; P<0.05), with a lower energy intake (7901 (SEM 311) v. 9332 (SEM 227) kJ; P<0.001). In conclusion, subjects reporting symptoms they associated with hypoglycaemia generally did not demonstrate biochemical hypoglycaemia but did have significantly lower blood glucose levels than controls. Higher physical activity and a failure to match energy intake to estimated energy requirement may be important in the aetiology of symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".