An Appropriate Energy Intake Proportion of Three Major Nutrients for Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To keep good glycemic control and suppress the development of diabetic complication, diet therapy is a very crucial treatment for type 2 diabetes. Recently, the effectiveness of carbohydrate-restricted diet, and the diet for sarcopenia and frailty have been suggested, inducing the paradigm shift of diet for type 2 diabetes. There is insufficient evidence regarding the distribution of nutrients in the diet of patients with type 2 diabetes. Here, we reviewed the current state of evidences and guidelines regarding energy allocation of nutrients for patients who have already developed diabetes. At present, any Japanese and international guidelines did not clearly describe an appropriate energy intake proportion of three major nutrients for treatment of type 2 diabetes. The tailor-made medicine should also be applied to the diet for type 2 diabetes. When setting the nutritional balance of diabetic patients, first, we should fully understand each patient’s current situation and make appropriate adjustments, taking into the account of changes in body weight, blood glucose and lipid levels, patient preferences, and feasibility. J Endocrinol Metab. 2020;10(5):113-117 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem693
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".