MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399677284 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwae175.321

Anthropometric and cardiometabolic evolution during DIABEPIC 2 pilot study: type 2 diabetes remission program designed for cardiovascular prevention

2024· article· en· W4399677284 on OpenAlexaff
V. Dionne, Josep Iglésies, Élise Latour, François Besnier, Christine Gagnon, Mathieu Gayda, V Pelletier, Amélie Debray, Martin Juneau, Ashwini Kumar Nigam, P L'allier, François Simard, Louis Bherer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnthropometryType 2 diabetesRepeated measures designAnalysis of varianceMultivariate analysisDiabetes mellitusInternal medicinePhysical therapyPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The most studied strategies for type 2 diabetes (T2D) remission are bariatric surgery and continuous low-calorie diet. DIABÉPIC 2 pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a T2D remission program based on nutritional and training interventions with known cardiovascular benefits. Thirteen of the 34 diabetics who completed the program were treatment-free at 6 months with an Hb1Ac < 6.5% (Remission group). In contrast, the other 21 diabetics did not reach the criteria of T2D remission (No remission group). Objective Evaluate exploratory cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction and the change in anthropometric and cardiometabolic values, for the whole sample and between the remission and no remission groups. Methods TD2 adults were recruited (Hb1Ac > 6.5% or on oral glucose-lowering agents). Interventions involved dietary education (ultra-processed food withdrawal, Mediterranean diet moderate in carbohydrates) and aerobic and strength training. Participants were also randomized (2:1) to an intermittent fasting protocol (figure 1). Bioimpedance analysis (Seca mBCA 514) and blood tests were performed prior to and at the end of the program. A multivariate repeated-measure ANOVA was used to assess group differences, regarding the change in all anthropometric and cardiometabolic markers presented. Exploratory one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to compare pre-post differences. All effect sizes are reported using the partial Eta-squared. Results 34 participants (41.2% women, 63.6 ± 9.2 years old, T2D duration 7.4 ± 6.7 years, Hb1Ac 6.7 ± 0.7 %). The multivariate analysis showed a group effect (remission vs. no remission) only in the change in triglycerides (TG) (p=0.015, h2p = 0.171). The exploratory analysis in the whole sample (n=34), showed a significant improvement in all anthropometric values: weight -6.8 kg (-9.3 to -4.4, p<0.001), waist -7.5 cm (-9.4 to -5.5, p<0.001), visceral fat -1.3 liters (-1.8 to -0.9, p<0.001), fat mass -3.7% (-4.9 to -2.5, p<0.001), lean mass +3.7% (2.5 to 4.9, 0<0.001). For cardiometabolic parameters, there was a significant change in TG -0.3mmo/l (-0.5 to -0.1, p=0.002), alanine transaminase -7.5 U/L (-14.7 to -0.3, p=0.012), C-reactive protein-high sensibility -1.1 mg/L (-2.0 to -0.2, p=0.004), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) +0.1 (-0.0 to 0.2, p=0.020), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol +0.2 (-0.0 to 0.4, p=0.036) and TG/HDL-C ratio -0.3 (-0.4 to -0.1, p=0.002), (figure 2 for complete results). Conclusion The difference in the evolution of anthropometric and cardiometabolic parameters between the remission and no remission groups was significant only for the TGs, underlining the magnitude of improvements even in the group that did not achieve T2D remission. In addition to the current T2D remission criteria, the CV risk reduction efficacy of selected interventions should be considered in program design. Larger clinical studies are needed to confirm these results. Figure 1. Interventions. Figure 2. Results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207