1247-P: Physical Activity and Cardiometabolic Health in Youth with Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Youth living with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are characterized by an increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk profile. It is unclear if regular vigorous intensity physical activity (PA) modifies this CVD risk. Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, we compared cardiometabolic risk factors among 164 youth with T2D from the The Improving renal Complications in Adolescents with T2D through REsearch (iCARE) cohort, stratified according to participation in vigorous intensity organized sport. Outcomes of interest were HbA1c, ambulatory blood pressure (BP) parameters from 24 hr monitoring, hypertension according to 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics criteria and albuminuria determined from first morning urine samples. The main exposure, regular (≥ 3 days/week) participation in vigorous intensity organized sport was determined from a validated questionnaire (Adolescent Physical Activity Questionnaire). Results: Youth were 15 ± 3 yrs, 78% lived in a rural town, 68% were girls, mean BMI Z score was 2.4 ± 1.1 and mean HbA1c was 9.6 ± 2.6%. Youth that participated in regular vigorous intensity organized sport (40%; n=67) achieved nearly twice the dose of PA than less active peers (176 vs. 108 MET-HR/week; p=0.001). After adjusting for duration of diabetes, BMI Z score, sex and current smoking status, youth with T2D who engaged in regular vigorous intensity organized sport displayed lower HbA1c (9.1%, vs. 9.9% p = 0.052), diastolic BP (70 vs. 73 mmHg, p = 0.002) and diastolic load (20 vs. 26%, p = 0.023). Compared to youth that did not participate in regular vigorous intensity organized sport, those who did displayed a lower odds of albuminuria (OR: 0.40 95% CI: 0.19-0.84) and hypertension (OR: 0.39 95% CI: 0.16-0.95). Conclusions: Among youth living with T2D, self-reported frequent participation in vigorous organized sport is associated with lower CVD risk. These data need to be confirmed with prospective observational and experimental data. Disclosure J.L. Slaght: None. A. Dart: None. T. Blydt-Hansen: None. E. Sellers: None. B. Wicklow: None. J. Mcgavock: None. Funding Diabetes Canada (OG-3-11-3354-AD); Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-142309)
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".