Physical activity in prevention and treatment of the metabolic syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomised controlled trials have shown that exercise training has a mild or moderate favourable effect on many metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors that constitute or are related to the metabolic syndrome (MetS). Epidemiological studies suggest that regular physical activity prevents type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and premature mortality in large part through these risk factors. Although randomized controlled trials with the prevention or treatment of the MetS as the main outcome have not been published, several large randomized controlled trials provide strong evidence that favourable lifestyle changes, including regular physical activity, are effective in the prevention of type 2 diabetes in individuals who are overweight and have impaired glucose tolerance. Compliance with the current recommendations to increase the total volume of moderate-intensity physical activity and to maintain good cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness appears to markedly decrease the likelihood of developing the MetS, especially in high-risk groups. Walking is the most common form of physical activity--it improves health in many ways and is generally safe. Therefore, brisk walking for at least 30 min daily can be recommended as the principal form of physical activity at the population level. If there are no contraindications, more vigorous physical exercise or resistance training should also be considered to obtain additional health benefits. Unstructured and low-intensity physical activity may also decrease the likelihood of developing the MetS, especially when substituted for sedentary behaviours such as watching television. The measurement of maximal oxygen consumption may provide an efficient means to target even individuals with relatively few metabolic risk factors who may benefit from more intensive intervention.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".