Impact of individual and environmental factors on dietary or lifestyle interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes development: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The variability in the effectiveness of type 2 diabetes (T2D) preventive interventions highlights the potential to identify the factors that determine treatment responses and those that would benefit the most from a given intervention. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the evidence to support whether sociodemographic, clinical, behavioral, and molecular factors modify the efficacy of dietary or lifestyle interventions to prevent T2D. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting on the effect of a lifestyle, dietary pattern, or dietary supplement interventions on the incidence of T2D and reporting the results stratified by any effect modifier. We extracted relevant statistical findings and qualitatively synthesized the evidence for each modifier based on the direction of findings reported in available studies. We used the Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Scale to assess the certainty of the evidence for a given effect modifier. Results The 81 publications that met our criteria for inclusion are from 33 unique trials. The evidence is low to very low to attribute variability in intervention effectiveness to individual characteristics such as age, sex, BMI, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, baseline behavioral factors, or genetic predisposition. Conclusions We report evidence, albeit low certainty, that those with poorer health status, particularly those with prediabetes at baseline, tend to benefit more from T2D prevention strategies compared to healthier counterparts. Our synthesis highlights the need for purposefully designed clinical trials to inform whether individual factors influence the success of T2D prevention strategies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".