Evolution of Dietary Recommendations for Managing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Across the Ages: A Scoping Review Focusing on Carbohydrate-Restricted Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus (DM), a disease documented since 1500 BCE [1], has become a serious health concern worldwide, particularly type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) [2]. Dietary recommendations for the treatment of DM have evolved over time, in accordance with advancements in scientific knowledge. Currently, there is no consensus on the ideal diet for the management of DM2. In 2017, Scottish clinical guidelines recommended limiting the total amount of carbohydrates and prioritizing foods with a low glycemic index [3]. In 2018, a joint consensus statement published by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the most important reference in DM guidelines, and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) recommended a carbohydrate-restricted diet (CRD) among the treatment options for DM2, citing no side effects [4]. In a consensus report published in 2019, ADA argued that reducing the total amount of carbohydrates was the most supported strategy for improving blood glucose in individuals with DM2 [5]. Currently, CRDs are recommended by Australian, British, Canadian, Brazilian, and American guidelines [6,7,8,9,10], but with some reservations. These guidelines make no specific recommendations regarding nutrient percentages and do not focus on specific food items. The history of dietary recommendations for the treatment of DM2 is commonly addressed in scientific studies, although not as the main goal of the research [11,12,13,14]. The study of Lenners et al. [15] discussed carbohydrate restriction for individuals with DM2 "as a knowledge to be rediscovered." The current study delves deeper into the themes approached by Lenners et al. [15] by examining historical milestones and contemporary dietary recommendations based on CRDs. Thus, it prompts reflection on the importance of understanding the historical and temporal trajectory of CRDs, an evidence-based strategy for the treatment of DM [6,7,8,9,10].
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".