Six-year follow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors after a one-year intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes: An extension of the randomized U-TURN trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe the effects of a 1-year lifestyle intervention on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and cardiovascular risk factors 5 years after cessation of the lifestyle intervention in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: From April 2015 to August 2016, 98 persons with T2D (duration < 10 years) were randomly allocated (2:1, stratified by sex) to a 1-year lifestyle intervention group (INT) (n = 64) or a standard care group (StC) (n = 34). All participants received standard care with blinded, target-driven medical therapy. INT included up to 5-6 weekly supervised aerobic and strength training sessions and dietary plans targeting a body mass index ≤ 25 kg/m². No intervention was given during the follow-up period. Forty-nine (77%) and 19 (56%) participants in INT and StC attended the 6-year follow-up. Based on the original intention-to-treat population, the primary outcome was the change in HbA1c from baseline to 6-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included weight, Low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, blood pressure (BP), and cardiorespiratory fitness. RESULTS: Ninety-eight participants (mean age = 54.6 years; 46% women; mean baseline Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) = 49.8 mmol/mol) were analyzed. HbA1c changed 6% and 13% in the INT and StC from baseline to 6-year follow-up (between group difference = -6% (95% confidence interval(95%CI): -14% to 3%); p = 0.18). While no differences were observed for most secondary outcomes, the diastolic BP decreased 6.0 (95%CI: 2.1 to 9.8) mmHg more in the StC compared to INT. CONCLUSION: The sustained effect of the lifestyle intervention on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors was marginal, and it was surprisingly associated with inferior diastolic BP regulation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".