Increasing aerobic exercise intensity fails to consistently improve the glycemic response in people living with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes mellitus: the INTENSITY trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some individuals with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who engage in exercise will not experience the anticipated improvements in glycemic control, referred to as non-responders. Increasing exercise intensity may improve the proportion of individuals who become responders. The objectives were to ( i) identify responders and non-responders based on changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in individuals with prediabetes or T2DM following 16 weeks of aerobic exercise; ( ii) investigate if increasing exercise intensity enhances the responders’ status for individuals not previously responding favourably to the intervention. Participants ( n = 40; age = 58.0 years (52.0–66.0); HbA1c = 7.0% (6.0–7.2)) engaged in a two-phase, randomized study design. During phase one, participants performed 16 weeks of treadmill-based, supervised, aerobic exercise at 4.5 metabolic equivalents (METs) for 150 min per week. Thereafter, participants were categorized as responders, non-responders, or unclear based on the 90% confidence interval above, below, or crossing a 0.3% reduction in HbA1c. For phase two, participants were randomized to a maintained intensity (4.5 METs) or increased intensity (6.0 METs) group for 12 weeks. Following phase one, two (4.1%) participants were categorized as responders, four (8.2%) as non-responders, and 43 (87.7%) as unclear. Following phase two, two from the increased intensity group and one from the maintained intensity group experienced an improvement in response categorization. There were no significant between or within group (maintained vs. increased) differences in HbA1c. For most people with prediabetes or T2DM, increasing exercise intensity by 1.5 METs does not improve response categorization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".