Evaluation of Factors Related to Glycemic Management in Professional Cyclists With Type 1 Diabetes Over a 7-Day Stage Race
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate factors related to glycemic management among members of a professional cycling team with type 1 diabetes over a 7-day Union Cycliste Internationale World Tour stage race. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS An observational evaluation of possible factors related to glycemic management and performance in six male professional cyclists with type 1 diabetes (HbA1c 6.4 ± 0.6%) during the 2019 Tour of California. RESULTS In-ride time spent in euglycemia (3.9–10.0 mmol/L glucose) was 63 ± 11%, with a low percentage of time spent in level 1 (3.0–3.9 mmol/L; 0 ± 1% of time) and level 2 (<3.0 mmol/L; 0 ± 0% of time) hypoglycemia over the 7-day race. Riders spent 25 ± 9% of time in level 1 (10.1–13.9 mmol/L) and 11 ± 9% in level 2 (>13.9 mmol/L) hyperglycemia during races. Bolus insulin use was uncommon during races, despite high carbohydrate intake (76 ± 23 g ⋅ h−1). Overnight, the riders spent progressively more time in hypoglycemia from day 1 (6 ± 12% in level 1 and 0 ± 0% in level 2) to day 7 (12 ± 12% in level 1 and 2 ± 4% in level 2) (χ2[1] > 4.78, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Professional cyclists with type 1 diabetes have excellent in-race glycemia, but significant hypoglycemia during recovery overnight, throughout a 7-day stage race.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".