The Type 1 Diabetes and EXercise Initiative: Predicting Hypoglycemia Risk During Exercise for Participants with Type 1 Diabetes Using Repeated Measures Random Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Exercise is known to increase the risk for hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes (T1D) but predicting when it may occur remains a major challenge. The objective of this study was to develop a hypoglycemia prediction model based on a large real-world study of exercise in T1D. Research Design and Methods: Structured study-specified exercise (aerobic, interval, and resistance training videos) and free-living exercise sessions from the T1D Exercise Initiative study were used to build a model for predicting hypoglycemia, a continuous glucose monitoring value <70 mg/dL, during exercise. Repeated measures random forest (RMRF) and repeated measures logistic regression (RMLR) models were constructed to predict hypoglycemia using predictors at the start of exercise and baseline characteristics. Models were evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and balanced accuracy. Results: RMRF and RMLR had similar AUC (0.833 vs. 0.825, respectively) and both models had a balanced accuracy of 77%. The probability of hypoglycemia was higher for exercise sessions with lower pre-exercise glucose levels, negative pre-exercise glucose rates of change, greater percent time <70 mg/dL in the 24 h before exercise, and greater pre-exercise bolus insulin-on-board (IOB). Free-living aerobic exercises, walking/hiking, and physical labor had the highest probability of hypoglycemia, while structured exercises had the lowest probability of hypoglycemia. Conclusions: RMRF and RMLR accurately predict hypoglycemia during exercise and identify factors that increase the risk of hypoglycemia. Lower glucose, decreasing levels of glucose before exercise, and greater pre-exercise IOB largely predict hypoglycemia risk in adults with T1D.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".