Physical activity and cardiometabolic health in adolescents with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Youth living with type 2 diabetes display increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is unclear if regular physical activity (PA) modifies this risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared CVD risk factors in a cross-sectional study of 164 youth with type 2 diabetes stratified according to weekly vigorous-intensity PA. Outcomes were hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), ambulatory blood pressure (BP; ambulatory 24-hour readings), plasma lipoproteins, and albuminuria. The main exposure, vigorous-intensity PA, was quantified with the Adolescent Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire. RESULTS: Youth were 15±3 years, and 78% lived rurally and 68% were female, with a mean body mass index (BMI) Z-score of 2.4±1.1 and a mean HbA1c of 9.6% ±2.6%. Youth who participated in regular vigorous-intensity PA (40%; n=67) achieved nearly twice the dose of PA than peers who did not (62 vs 34 metabolic equivalent score-hour/week, p=0.001). After adjusting for duration of diabetes, BMI Z-score, sex, and smoking, youth who engaged in vigorous-intensity PA displayed lower HbA1c (9.1% vs 9.9%, p=0.052), diastolic BP (70 mm Hg vs 73 mm Hg, p=0.002), diastolic load (20% vs 26%, p=0.023), and mean arterial pressure (87.3 mm Hg vs 90.3 mm Hg, p<0.01), compared with youth who did not. Compared with youth who did not participate in regular vigorous-intensity PA, those who did also displayed lower odds of albuminuria after adjusting for duration of diabetes, sex, smoking, rural residence, and BMI Z-score (adjusted OR: 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Among youth with type 2 diabetes, participation in vigorous-intensity PA is associated with lower CVD risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".