MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281634395 · doi:10.2337/db22-540-p

540-P: Meta-analysis of Blood Glucose Response to High Intensity Exercise in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

2022· article· en· W4281634395 on OpenAlexaff
REID MCCLURE, EMMA WESEEN, FRANCISCO JAVIER ALCÁNTARA CORDERO, MIRANDA MALDANER, SARAH HART, Normand G. Boulé, Jane E. Yardley

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Analysis of varianceInternal medicineType 1 diabetesMeta-analysisRepeated measures designDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyPhysical therapyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: High intensity exercise-induced hyperglycemia is recognized in T1D clinical guidelines, but its occurrence after high intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) in acute studies is inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the available evidence of BG responses to HIIE in adults with T1D. The secondary aim was to assess the role of prandial status (fasted/fed) , sex (by percentage of female participants ≤ 50, or > 50) , mean age, fitness (VO2peak) , interval duration, and total exercise duration on BG outcomes. We hypothesized that there would be no consistent effect on BG from HIIE, unless examined in the context of participant prandial status. Methods: We conducted a literature search using keywords related to T1D and HIIE. Studies were required to have a minimum of 6 participants with T1D aged ≥17 years, involving a HIIE intervention, and a pre- and post-exercise measure of BG to be included. Analyses were performed using a general inverse variance statistical method with a random effects model on RevMan5® statistical software and a weighted multiple regression on STATA17® statistical software. Results: Seventeen interventions from 13 studies were included in the final analysis. A mean overall BG change of -1.4 mmol/L (-3.0, 0.2) was found during exercise albeit with high heterogeneity (I2= 92%) . Fasted exercise increased BG by +1.7 mmol/L (-0.2, 3.6) , while fed exercise decreased BG by -2.6 mmol/L (3.7, -1.5) , with a statistically significant difference between groups (p<0.001) . There were no significant effects from sex (p=0.74) , fitness (p=0.46) , age (p=0.89) , interval duration (p=0.25) or exercise duration (p=0.38) . Conclusions: The effect of HIIE on BG is inconsistent, but partially explained by prandial status. Disclosure R.Mcclure: None. E.Weseen: None. F.Alcántara cordero: None. M.Maldaner: None. S.Hart: None. N.G.Boulé: None. J.E.Yardley: Research Support; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc., LifeScan, Speaker's Bureau; Abbott Diabetes.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.055
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207