Association of Aerobic Physical Activity and Resistance Exercise with Glycated Hemoglobin in Women with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The American Diabetes Association recommends that patients with diabetes engage in at least 150 minutes of physical activity (PA) per week and perform resistance exercise (RE) at least twice weekly. However, their benefits in controlling glucose levels among women with diabetes are not completely understood. Therefore, we investigated whether meeting PA or RE guidelines is associated with lower odds of uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) among women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 1213 women with diabetes from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2014-2018. Using PA questionnaires, participants were categorized according to whether they met aerobic PA guidelines (≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA), RE guidelines (≥twice weekly), or both. Further, HbA1c levels >7.5% were classified as uncontrolled glycemic levels. Multivariate logistic regression models were employed to investigate whether meeting PA or RE guidelines is associated with uncontrolled HbA1c. RESULTS: <0.05). Moreover, the association between RE participation and lower odds of HbA1c >7.5% was observed regardless of age, body mass index, and prevalence of hypertension. CONCLUSION: Participation in RE may be important for women with diabetes for glycemic control. Further research is needed to better understand the associations between HbA1c and different exercise modalities (i.e., resistance vs. aerobic exercise) in women with diabetes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".