Can Resistance Exercise Be a Tool for Healthy Aging in Post-Menopausal Women with Type 1 Diabetes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to improvements in diabetes care, people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are living longer. Studies show that post-menopausal T1D women have a substantially elevated cardiovascular risk compared to those without T1D. As T1D may also accelerate age-related bone and muscle loss, the risk of frailty may be considerable for T1D women. Exercise and physical activity may be optimal preventative therapies to maintain health and prevent complications in this population: They are associated with improvements in, or maintenance of, cardiovascular health, bone mineral density, and muscle mass in older adults. Resistance exercise, in particular, may provide important protection against age-related frailty, due to its specific effects on bone and muscle. Fear of hypoglycemia can be a barrier to exercise in those with T1D, and resistance exercise may cause less hypoglycemia than aerobic exercise. There are currently no exercise studies involving older, post-menopausal women with T1D. As such, it is unknown whether current guidelines for insulin adjustment/carbohydrate intake for activity are appropriate for this population. This review focuses on existing knowledge about exercise in older adults and considers potential future directions around resistance exercise as a therapeutic intervention for post-menopausal T1D women.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".