Success with lifestyle monotherapy in youth with new-onset type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking to support the efficacy of lifestyle modification as first-line therapy in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in adolescents. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of youth diagnosed with T2DM between 1999 and 2008 was conducted. The authors describe the percentage of youth presenting with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of <9% who achieved/maintained target glycemic control (HbA1c ≤7.0%) with lifestyle monotherapy during the year following diagnosis. RESULTS: Among the 275 youth with T2DM, 38% (n=104) presented with an HbA1c <9% and were prescribed lifestyle monotherapy at diagnosis. Of the 80 youth who had sufficient follow-up data over 12 months, 54% successfully maintained target glycemic control solely with lifestyle management. The mean HbA1c score at diagnosis was lower in youth who where successful on lifestlye monotherapy compared with those who were not successful. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of youth newly diagnosed with T2DM presenting with an HbA1c <9% effectively achieved/maintained target glycemic control with lifestyle recommendations alone for 12 months. BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking to support the efficacy of lifestyle modification as first-line therapy in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in adolescents. METHODS: ≤7.0%) with lifestyle monotherapy during the year following diagnosis. RESULTS: score at diagnosis was lower in youth who where successful on lifestlye monotherapy compared with those who were not successful. CONCLUSIONS: <9% effectively achieved/maintained target glycemic control with lifestyle recommendations alone for 12 months.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".