Diabetic Polyneuropathy and Physical Activity in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to access whether a personal attitude to physical activity (PA) may influence the appearance of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes mellitus. Methods: Ninety patients attending the diabetes technology outpatient clinic were enrolled. DPN was investigated according to the Toronto consensus diagnostic criteria. PA was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Results: PA was low in 21.1%, moderate in 42.2% and high in 36.7% of patients. According to Toronto criteria, we defined two categories: the first one with DPN absent or possible (57 (63.3%)) and a second one with DPN certain or probable (33 (36.7%)). The χ2-test of the PA groups and the DPN categories showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001), with less neuropathy in patients belonging to the group of moderate/high PA. Exposure to a minimum of 600 MET minutes/week was protective factor against the onset of DPN (odd ratio 0.221, c.i. 0.068–0.720, p = 0.012). Conclusions: This study suggests that DPN is less present in type 1 diabetic patients with good metabolic control and a good personal habit of PA. Moderate-to-vigorous PA of at least 600 MET minutes/week might be a protective factor against DPN.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".