The Use of Automated Insulin Delivery around Physical Activity and Exercise in Type 1 Diabetes: A Position Statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular physical activity and exercise (PA) are cornerstones of diabetes care for individuals with type 1 diabetes. In recent years, the availability of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has improved the ability of people with type 1 diabetes to achieve the recommended glucose target ranges. PA provides additional health benefits but can cause glucose fluctuations, which challenges current AID systems. While an increasing number of clinical trials and reviews are being published on different AID systems and PA, it seems prudent at this time to collate this information and develop a position statement on the topic. This joint European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)/International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) position statement reviews current evidence on AID systems and provides detailed clinical practice points for managing PA in children, adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes using AID technology. It discusses each commercially available AID system individually and provides guidance on its use in PA. Additionally, it addresses different glucose responses to PA and provides stratified therapy options to maintain glucose levels within the target ranges for these age groups.
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 | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".