Three short postmeal walks as an alternate therapy to continuous walking for women with gestational diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether postmeal walking (PMW, breaking up exercise into short bouts after meals) is an effective and feasible alternative to continuous walking for the management of gestational diabetes. Forty-one women with gestational diabetes were randomised between weeks 28–30 gestation to either standard care (30 minutes continuous exercise) or standard care with PMW (10 minutes of walking after breakfast, lunch, and dinner). Continuous glucose and activity monitors were worn to measure glycaemic control and adherence during 3 days of standard care (baseline) followed by 3 days of postmeal or continuous walking. A linear mixed model analysed the changes from baseline between postmeal and continuous walking, as an average of the 3-day periods. Thirty-two women (PMW n = 17: control n = 15, 33 ± 5 years, body mass index 25 ± 4 kg·m–2) completed the trial. Postprandial and overnight glucose concentrations were similar between PMW and control; both interventions improved from baseline. There was no difference in adherence between groups; however, PMW completed more minutes of prescribed physical activity across baseline and intervention days compared to the continuous walking standard-care group. Preliminary findings from this proof-of-concept study suggest PMW could be a promising alternative to, and work interchangeably with, traditional advice to perform continuous moderate-intensity physical activity in women with gestational diabetes. Novelty: Three 10-minute postmeal walks may be comparable to 30 minutes continuous walking for glucose control in women with gestational diabetes. Accumulating activity in short bouts after meals is a feasible alternate to continuous exercise for women with gestational 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".