Independent and combined effects of physical activity and body mass index on the development of Type 2 Diabetes – a meta-analysis of 9 prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this harmonized meta-analysis was to examine the independent and combined effects of physical activity and BMI on the incidence of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Our systematic literature review in 2011 identified 127 potentially relevant prospective studies of which 9 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (total N = 117,878, 56.2 % female, mean age = 50.0 years, range = 25-65 years). Measures of baseline physical activity (low, intermediate, high), BMI-category [BMI < 18.4 (underweight), 18.5-24.9 (normal weight), 25.0-29.9 (overweight), 30+ (obese)] and incident type 2 diabetes were harmonized across studies. The associations between physical activity, BMI and incident type 2 diabetes were analyzed using Cox regression with a standardized analysis protocol including adjustments for age, gender, educational level, and smoking. Hazard ratios from individual studies were combined in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 9.1 years. A total of 11,237 incident type 2 diabetes cases were recorded. In mutually adjusted models, being overweight or obese (compared with normal weight) and having low physical activity (compared with high physical activity) were associated with an increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes (hazard ratios 2.33, 95 % CI 1.95-2.78; 6.10, 95 % CI: 4.63-8.04, and 1.23, 95 % CI: 1.09-1.39, respectively). Individuals who were both obese and had low physical activity had 7.4-fold (95 % CI 3.47-15.89) increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared with normal weight, high physically active participants. CONCLUSIONS: This harmonized meta-analysis shows the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and being physically active in diabetes prevention.
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 | 0.032 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.088 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".