MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056277456

The effect of adding vigorous intensity physical activity to moderate intensity physical activity in self-reported active persons living with Type 1 Diabetes

2016· dissertation· en· W7056277456 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersResearch Manitoba
KeywordsEveningPhysical activityHypoglycemiaType 1 diabetesIntensity (physics)Observational studyDiabetes mellitusMorning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Physical activity (PA) poses an additional burden on people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) as it increases the risk of hypoglycemia, if performed at a moderate intensity. It is hypothesized that adding vigorous PA (VPA) into moderate PA (MPA) may help attenuate exercise-related hypoglycemia. Methods: Seventeen participants with T1D (23.7±6.6 years) completed an observational study of six days with continuous glucose monitoring and accelerometer-derived measures of PA to determine the association between PA intensity and both hypoglycemia risk and glucose variability (GV). Results: Higher evening moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) increased the risk of overnight hypoglycemia (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.002-1.047, p=0.031). Increased evening VPA was not associated with reduced hypoglycemia, but decreased overnight GV (3.20±0.25 for low vs 2.27±0.29 for high; p=0.022). Conclusions: Performing evening MVPA increases hypoglycemia risk overnight, but incorporating VPA did not prove to be protective. However, VPA reduced GV, which is a predictor of hypoglycemia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207