Physical Activity Levels in Individuals with Cystic Fibrosis–Related Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The literature on physical activity (PA) in adults with cystic fibrosis, particularly in those with cystic fibrosis–related diabetes (CFRD), is limited. PA may be an important part of blood glucose management in CFRD. The purpose of this study was to describe PA levels in adults with CFRD and determine their adherence to the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) aerobic exercise training guidelines. Methods: Adults with CFRD were recruited from a hospital-based CF clinic. PA was measured using the Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall (telephone interview), adherence to CFRD management with the Self-Care Inventory–Revised (questionnaire), and blood glucose control from glycated hemoglobin levels documented in participants' medical chart within 3 months. Results: Eighteen adults (mean age 41 [SD 9] y) with diagnosed CFRD participated in the study. They varied in volume of PA (range 13,080–17,362 metabolic equivalent min/wk). Of the study participants, 12 (67%) met the CDA guidelines of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous PA per week with no more than 2 consecutive days without exercise. No differences were found in clinical factors between those who met the aerobic exercise guidelines and those who did not. Conclusion: The majority of individuals with CFRD are meeting the recommended amount of aerobic PA. The factors influencing PA and blood glucose control in adults with CFRD require further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".