MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151117790 · doi:10.1177/193229680900300439

Exercise and Glucose Metabolism in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus: Perspectives on the Role for Continuous Glucose Monitoring

2009· review· en· W2151117790 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Riddell, Bruce A. Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Science and Technology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicDiabetes mellitusMedicineAnaerobic exerciseContinuous glucose monitoringCarbohydrate metabolismGlucose homeostasisAerobic exerciseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringType 2 Diabetes MellitusType 2 diabetesBlood sugar regulationPhysical exerciseEndocrinologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise causes profound changes in glucose homeostasis. For people with type 1 diabetes, aerobic exercise usually causes blood glucose concentration to drop rapidly, while anaerobic exercise may cause it to rise, thereby making glycemic control challenging. Having the capacity to know their glucose levels and the direction of change during exercise increases self-efficacy in these persons who are prone to hypo- and hyperglycemia. For people with type 2 diabetes, learning first hand that regular exercise improves glucose levels may be a motivating factor in getting them to be more active. Continuous glucose monitoring is a potentially useful adjunct to diabetes management for the active person with either forms of diabetes. This review aims to guide the reader to use this technology to its maximum advantage by providing an overview of technical features, performance characteristics, and clinical utility, all balanced against the limitations that may be more prominent during physical activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations136
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes Science and TechnologySame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207