Online Classification of Unstructured Free-Living Exercise Sessions in People with Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Managing exercise in type 1 diabetes is challenging, in part, because different types of exercises can have diverging effects on glycemia. The aim of this work was to develop a classification model that can classify an exercise event (structured or unstructured) as aerobic, interval, or resistance for the purpose of incorporation into an automated insulin delivery (AID) system. Methods: A long short-term memory network model was developed with real-world data from 30-min structured sessions of at-home exercise (aerobic, resistance, or mixed) using triaxial accelerometer, heart rate, and activity duration information. The detection algorithm was used to classify 15 common free-living and unstructured activities and relate each to exercise-associated change in glucose. Results: A total of 1610 structured exercise sessions were used to train, validate, and test the model. The accuracy for the structured exercise sessions in the testing set was 72% for aerobic , 65% for interval , and 77% for resistance . In addition, we tested the classifier on 3328 unstructured sessions. We validated the session-associated change in glucose against the expected change during exercise for each type. Mean and standard deviation of the change in glucose of −20.8 (40.3) mg/dL were achieved for sessions classified as aerobic , −16.2 (39.0) mg/dL for sessions classified as interval , and −11.6 (38.8) mg/dL for sessions classified as resistance . Conclusions: The proposed algorithm reliably identified physical activity associated with expected change in glucose, which could be integrated into an AID system to manage the exercise disturbance in glycemia according to the predicted class.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".