MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035450645 · doi:10.2337/db20-683-p

683-P: Menstrual Cycle and Glycemic Differences during Prolonged, Fasting Exercise in Females with Type 1 Diabetes

2020· article· en· W3035450645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah McGaugh, Dessi P. Zaharieva, Rubin Pooni, Ninoschka C. D’Souza, Jane E. Yardley, MICHAEL RIDDELL

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuteal phaseInternal medicineEndocrinologyFollicular phaseMedicineGlycemicMenstrual cycleMenstruationType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glycemic control may differ throughout the menstrual cycle, with increased incidence of hyperglycemia in the luteal phase. However, it is unclear if glycemic differences exist in the follicular vs. luteal phase during prolonged fasted exercise in T1D. The aim of this study was to determine if the early follicular vs. luteal phase impacts blood glucose levels during and post-exercise. Females with T1D (n = 7, age 28±6 years, A1c 6.9±0.6%) completed two 2-hr aerobic exercise sessions (∼45% VO2peak), during the luteal (days 18-24) and early-follicular phases (days 1-6) of menstruation. Carbohydrate (CHO) intake (0.3g/kg/hr) occurred every 30-min if glucose was between 72-180 mg/dL. No differences existed between the two phases for starting glucose, changes in glucose, CHO consumption and CHO oxidation during exercise (Table). Baseline glucagon was elevated in the luteal (28±25pg/mL) vs. follicular phase (13±12pg/mL; P<0.05). Following exercise, overnight time in hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) was greater in the luteal (59±44%) vs. follicular phase (21±30%; P<0.05). Overall, glycemic responses during prolonged fasting exercise are similar between luteal and follicular phases in women with T1D, as are CHO intake needs. However, after exercise in the luteal phase, glycemia tends to be elevated and appears to contribute to greater time in hyperglycemia. Disclosure S.M. McGaugh: None. D. Zaharieva: Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Ascensia Diabetes Care, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic. R. Pooni: None. N.C. D’Souza: None. J.E. Yardley: Research Support; Self; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc., LifeScan Canada. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Dexcom, Inc. M. Riddell: Advisory Panel; Self; Zucara Therapeutics Inc. Consultant; Self; Lilly Diabetes. Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Medtronic, Novo Nordisk A/S.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207