The Impact of Resistance Training and Diabetes Education on Physical Functioning, Frailty Status, and Glycemia in Older Adults With Short- and Long-Duration Type 2 Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the Band-Frail Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diabetes duration is an underappreciated risk factor in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) management that can increase the risk of complications and potentially decrease the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions. However, it is unclear whether T2DM duration impacts the efficacy of an elastic band resistance training intervention for older adults living with comorbid T2DM and frailty. In this analysis we aimed to investigate and better understand the impact of a 16-week elastic band resistance training and diabetes education intervention on physical functioning, glycemia, and frailty in older adults of different T2DM durations. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the Band-Frail Study includes 130 adults (≥65 years) living with T2DM and pre-frailty/frailty who completed 16 weeks of elastic band resistance training and diabetes education. Participants were categorized as 1) short-duration T2DM (<10 years) and 2) long-duration T2DM (>10 years). Outcome measures included physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery), glycemia (glycated hemoglobin [A1C]), and frailty (Fried Frailty Scale). RESULTS: Participants in both the short- and long-duration T2DM groups improved in physical functioning and frailty status postintervention (p<0.05). The long-duration group improved A1C significantly more than the short-duration group (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that older adults, irrespective of T2DM duration, improve physical functioning and frailty status after 16 weeks of elastic band resistance training and diabetes education, and that longer duration T2DM is associated with greater improvements in A1C.
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 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".