Lifestyle Interventions for Four Conditions: Type 2 Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome, Breast Cancer, and Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions to control progression of type 2 diabetes, progression to diabetes from metabolic syndrome, or recurrence of breast cancer and prostate cancer. Lifestyle interventions were defined as any intervention that included exercise, diet, and at least one other component (e.g., counseling, stress management, smoking cessation). Data Sources A systematic and comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify RCTs from 1980 to the present. Review Methods Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were completed by several investigators in duplicate and independently. Random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Results From 1,288 citations, we included 20 unique RCTs (plus 80 associated publications): diabetes = 10 studies, metabolic syndrome = 7, breast and prostate cancer = 3. All studies had a “high” or “unclear” risk of bias. Type 2 diabetes: One RCT reported that, at 13 years postintervention, the lifestyle intervention group had fewer nonfatal strokes, reduced incidence of retinopathy, reduced progression of autonomic neuropathy, and reduced incidence of nephropathy. In this trial the lifestyle intervention included pharmacotherapy. A number of studies reported positive effects for lifestyle interventions on changes in body composition, metabolic variables, physical activity, and dietary intake; however, the results were not always statistically significant and were not always sustained following the end of the active intervention. Metabolic syndrome: Four studies reported that lifestyle interventions decreased the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Most studies also reported positive effects for changes in body composition, metabolic variables, physical activity, and dietary intake. The results were not always statistically significant and were not always sustained following the end of the active intervention. Breast and prostate cancer: One RCT on prostate cancer reported that the lifestyle intervention decreased PSA levels. Two studies reported positive effects for changes in body composition, metabolic variables, physical activity, and dietary intake; however, the results generally were not statistically significant. Conclusions Comprehensive lifestyle interventions that include exercise, dietary changes, and at least one other component are effective in decreasing the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in high risk patients and the benefit extends beyond the active intervention phase. In patients who have already been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, there is some evidence to suggest long-term benefit on microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, although the evidence is from one trial of high risk diabetic patients and included pharmacotherapy. The evidence for lifestyle interventions to prevent cancer recurrence is insufficient to draw conclusions. Comprehensive lifestyle interventions appear to have a positive impact on behavioral outcomes including exercise and dietary intake, as well as a number of metabolic variables, at least in the short-term in all populations addressed in this report.
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 | 0.015 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".