Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Exercise in Type 1 Diabetes: Past, Present and Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the widespread use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), knowledge of the effects of exercise in type 1 diabetes (T1D) was limited to the exercise period, with few studies having the budget or capacity to monitor participants overnight. Recently, CGM has become a staple of many exercise studies, allowing researchers to observe the otherwise elusive late post-exercise period. We performed a strategic search using PubMed and Academic Search Complete. Studies were included if they involved adults with T1D performing exercise or physical activity, had a sample size greater than 5, and involved the use of CGM. Upon completion of the search protocol, 26 articles were reviewed for inclusion. While outcomes have been variable, CGM use in exercise studies has allowed the assessment of post-exercise (especially nocturnal) trends for different exercise modalities in individuals with T1D. Sensor accuracy is currently considered adequate for exercise, which has been crucial to developing closed-loop and artificial pancreas systems. Until these systems are perfected, CGM continues to provide information about late post-exercise responses, to assist T1D patients in managing their glucose, and to be useful as a tool for teaching individuals with T1D about exercise.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".