Mindfulness, disordered eating, and impulsivity in relation to glycemia among adolescents with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemia from the <scp>Flexible Lifestyles Empowering Change</scp> ( <scp>FLEX</scp> ) intervention trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between mindfulness and glycemia among adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with suboptimal glycemia, and evaluate the potential mediation by ingestive behaviors, including disordered eating, and impulsivity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used linear mixed models for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and linear regression for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to study the relationship of mindfulness [Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM)] and glycemia in adolescents with T1D from the 18-month Flexible Lifestyles Empowering Change (FLEX) trial. We tested for mediation of the mindfulness-glycemia relationship by ingestive behaviors, including disordered eating (Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised), restrained eating, and emotional eating (Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire); and impulsivity (total, attentional, and motor, Barrett Impulsiveness Scale). RESULTS: At baseline, participants (n = 152) had a mean age of 14.9 ± 1.1 years and HbA1c of 9.4 ± 1.2% [79 ± 13 mmol/mol]. The majority of adolescents were non-Hispanic white (83.6%), 50.7% were female, and 73.0% used insulin pumps. From adjusted mixed models, a 5-point increase in mindfulness scores was associated with a -0.19% (95%CI -0.29, -0.08, p = 0.0006) reduction in HbA1c. We did not find statistically significant associations between mindfulness and CGM metrics. Mediation of the relationship between mindfulness and HbA1c by ingestive behaviors and impulsivity was not found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents with T1D and suboptimal glycemia, increased mindfulness was associated with lower HbA1c levels. Future studies may consider mindfulness-based interventions as a component of treatment for improving glycemia among adolescents with T1D, though more data are needed to assess feasibility and efficacy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".