Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical exercise is firmly incorporated in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1DM), due to multiple recognized beneficial health effects (cardiovascular disease prevention being preeminent). When glycemic values are not excessively low or high at the time of exercise, few absolute contraindications exist; practical guidelines regarding amount, type, and duration of age-appropriate exercise are regularly updated by entities such as the American Diabetes Association and the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes. Practical implementation of exercise regimens, however, may at times be problematic. In the poorly controlled patient, specific structural changes may occur within skeletal muscle fiber, which is considered by some to be a disease-specific myopathy. Further, even in well-controlled patients, several homeostatic mechanisms regulating carbohydrate metabolism often become impaired, causing hypo- or hyperglycemia during and/or after exercise. Some altered responses may be related to inappropriate exogenous insulin administration, but are often also partly caused by the "metabolic memory" of prior glycemic events. In this context, prior hyperglycemia correlates with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress responses, possibly modulating key exercise-associated cardio-protective pathways. Similarly, prior hypoglycemia correlates with impaired glucose counterregulation, resulting in greater likelihood of further hypoglycemia to develop. Additional exercise responses that may be altered in T1DM include growth factor release, which may be especially important in children and adolescents. These multiple alterations in the exercise response should not discourage physical activity in patients with T1DM, but rather should stimulate the quest for the identification of the exercise formats that maximize beneficial health effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".