Paradoxical Rise in Hypoglycemia Symptoms With Development of Hyperglycemia During High-Intensity Interval Training in Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the reliability of self-perception of glycemia during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in subjects with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This randomized crossover study included subjects who completed four fasted HIIT sessions. Subjects answered the Edinburgh Hypoglycemia Scale, estimated their blood glucose (BG), and had plasma glucose (PG) collected throughout exercise and recovery. RESULTS As PG increased throughout exercise, hypoglycemia scores increased across each category: autonomic (3.1–4.4, P < 0.05), neuroglycopenic (1.5–2.4, P < 0.05), and nonspecific (1.3–1.9, P < 0.05). Subjects’ estimated BG showed a negative bias that widened as exercise progressed and peaked at −1.6 ± 3.3 mmol/L (P < 0.001) postinsulin correction. CONCLUSIONS During HIIT, despite progressing hyperglycemia, subjects experience increased hypoglycemia symptoms and tend to underestimate their BG level.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".