Optimizing Blood Glucose Control through the Timing of Exercise in Pregnant Individuals Diagnosed with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of moderate intensity walking on postprandial blood glucose control for pregnant individuals with (GDM) and without gestational diabetes mellitus (NON-GDM). Using a randomized cross-over design, individuals completed 5 days of exercise (three 10-min walks immediately after eating (SHORT), or one 30-min walk (LONG) outside of 1 h after eating). These protocols were preceded and separated by 2-days of habitual exercise (NORMAL). Individuals were instrumented with a continuous glucose monitor, a physical activity monitor for 14-days, and a heart rate monitor during exercise. Participants completed a physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES) to indicate their protocol preference. The GDM group had higher fasting, 24-h mean, and daily peak glucose values compared to NON-GDMs across all conditions (effect of group, p = 0.02; p = 0.02; p = 0.03, respectively). Fasting, 24-h mean, and daily peak glucose were not influenced by the SHORT or LONG exercise (effect of intervention, p > 0.05). Blood glucose values were higher among the GDM group for at least 1 h after eating, yet the exercise intervention had no effect on 1 or 2 h postprandial glucose values (effect of intervention, p > 0.05). Physical activity outcomes (wear time, total activity time, and time spent on each intensity) were not different between the groups nor interventions (effect of group, p > 0.05; effect of intervention, p > 0.05,). There were no differences between the groups or interventions for the PACES score (effect of group, p > 0.05; effect of intervention, p > 0.05). To conclude, there were no differences between the groups or exercise protocols on blood glucose control. More research is warranted to elucidate higher exercise volumes in this outcome for individuals with GDM.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".