Cited by 2,917Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Treatment and ManagementCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes

Open access
The Look AHEAD Research Group·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Weight loss is recommended for overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes on the basis of short-term studies, but long-term effects on cardiovascular disease remain unknown. We examined whether an intensive lifestyle intervention for weight loss would decrease cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among such patients. METHODS: In 16 study centers in the United States, we randomly assigned 5145 overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes to participate in an intensive lifestyle intervention that promoted weight loss through decreased caloric intake and increased physical activity (intervention group) or to receive diabetes support and education (control group). The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for angina during a maximum follow-up of 13.5 years. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early on the basis of a futility analysis when the median follow-up was 9.6 years. Weight loss was greater in the intervention group than in the control group throughout the study (8.6% vs. 0.7% at 1 year; 6.0% vs. 3.5% at study end). The intensive lifestyle intervention also produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and greater initial improvements in fitness and all cardiovascular risk factors, except for low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The primary outcome occurred in 403 patients in the intervention group and in 418 in the control group (1.83 and 1.92 events per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio in the intervention group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.09; P=0.51). CONCLUSIONS: An intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on weight loss did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events in overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Look AHEAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00017953.).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1212914

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

9 of 12 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    The Swedish Obesity Subjects (SOS) study reported lower cardiovascular event rates over a mean follow-up of 13.3 years in patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery.

    “The Swedish Obesity Subjects (SOS) study (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01479452) reported lower cardiovascular event rates over a mean follow-up of 13.3 years in patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery;5”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Findingcitation

    During the first two years of the trial, the primary event rate in the control group was lower than expected.

    “During the first two years of the trial, the primary event rate in the control group was lower than expected.9”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Premisecitation

    Individuals in the intervention group of Look AHEAD were more likely to experience partial diabetes remission during the first four years of the trial.

    “Further, we recently reported that individuals in the intervention group of Look AHEAD were more likely to experience partial diabetes remission during the first four years of the trial.19”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Findingown data

    The rate of self-reported fractures differed significantly between groups (2.16/100 person-years in the control group vs. 2.51/100 person-years in the intervention group; p=0.011).

    “Although the rate of self-reported fractures differed significantly between groups (2.16/100 person-years in the control group versus 2.51/100 person-years in the intervention group; p=0.011)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratio for the primary outcome is constant over follow-up (proportional hazards).
  • Findingown data

    Intensive lifestyle intervention produced greater initial improvements in fitness than diabetes support and education.

    “Intensive lifestyle intervention also produced greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c and greater initial improvements in fitness and all cardiovascular risk factors, except LDL cholesterol.”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
      “The intervention group also had greater improvements in fitness, particularly at 1 year.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 13
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Short-term studies show numerous benefits of weight loss, including improvements in glycemic control, cardiovascular disease risk factors, quality of life, and other obesity-related comorbidities.

    “This recommendation is based on short-term studies showing numerous benefits of weight loss, including improvements in glycemic control, cardiovascular disease risk factors, quality of life and other obesity-related comorbidities.2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      The Evidence-Based Guidelines and Blood Glucose sections (p. 58S) report improvements in cardiovascular risk factors and blood glucose with weight loss; the diabetes discussion (p. 90S) also reports improved glycemic control. The Surgery section reports improvements in obesity-related comorbidities, but says only that obesity impairs quality of life—not that short-term weight-loss studies found quality-of-life improvements. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A recent meta-analysis of cohort studies concluded that moderate intentional weight loss was associated with reduced mortality in "unhealthy" individuals, which included individuals with diabetes.

    “A recent meta-analysis4 of cohort studies concluded that moderate intentional weight loss was associated with reduced mortality in “unhealthy” individuals, which included individuals with diabetes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] source

      The Main findings section reports about 13% lower mortality among unhealthy adults, defined to include people with diabetes or obesity-related conditions. The Abstract describes a meta-analysis of prospective studies. However, the reported result concerns intentional weight loss generally; our copy does not establish that the reduction was specific to moderate weight loss. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Intensive lifestyle intervention has been shown to prevent or delay the development of type 2 diabetes in other studies.

    “Intensive lifestyle intervention has also been shown to prevent or delay the development of type 2 diabetes in other studies.15, 26”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [15] source
    • cites [26] source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Intensive lifestyle intervention has been associated with improvements in urinary incontinence, sleep apnea, depression, quality of life, physical function, and mobility in the early years of the trial.

    “Other benefits identified during the early years of the trial have included improvements in urinary incontinence,20 sleep apnea,21 depression,22 quality of life,23 physical function,24 and mobility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Intensive lifestyle intervention produced greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c than diabetes support and education, especially over the first year, and these improvements were at least partly sustained throughout follow-up.

    “Intensive lifestyle intervention produced clinically meaningful improvements in hemoglobin A1c, especially over the first year of the intervention, that were at least partly sustained throughout follow-up.”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
      “Intensive lifestyle intervention also produced greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c and greater initial improvements in fitness and all cardiovascular risk factors, except LDL cholesterol.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The event rate for the primary outcome was non-significantly lower in the intensive lifestyle intervention group than in the diabetes support and education group among individuals with no history of cardiovascular disease at baseline, but non-significantly higher in the intervention group among individuals with a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.

    “our data suggest that the event rate for the primary outcome was non-significantly lower in ILI than in DSE among individuals with no history of CVD at baseline, but non-significantly higher in ILI than in DSE among individuals with CVD at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratio for the primary outcome is constant over follow-up (proportional hazards).
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The difference in cardiovascular risk factors between intervention groups diminished over time, with hemoglobin A1c and systolic blood pressure showing the most sustained differences.

    “The difference in cardiovascular risk factors between intervention groups diminished over time, with hemoglobin A1c and systolic blood pressure showing the most sustained differences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no significant differences between the two trial groups with respect to the pre-specified composite secondary outcomes or any of the individual cardiovascular events making up the composite outcomes.

    “There were also no significant differences between the two trial groups with respect to the pre-specified composite secondary outcomes or any of the individual cardiovascular events making up the composite outcomes (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratio for the primary outcome is constant over follow-up (proportional hazards).
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    There were no significant interactions among the pre-specified subgroups (sex, race or ethnicity, and history of cardiovascular disease) for the primary outcome.

    “There were no significant interactions among the pre-specified subgroups (Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratio for the primary outcome is constant over follow-up (proportional hazards).
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Intensive lifestyle intervention produced greater weight loss than diabetes support and education at 1 year (8.6% vs. 0.7%) and at study end (6.0% vs. 3.5%).

    “Weight loss was greater in the intervention group than the control group throughout (8.6% vs. 0.7% at 1 year; 6.0% vs. 3.5% at study end).”
    • Also stated in: § Weight, Waist Circumference and Fitness · plain
      “Differences in mean weight loss were greatest at 1 year (8.6% in the intervention group vs. 0.7% in the control group) but remained statistically significant throughout the trial.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Randomization was stratified by clinical site.

    “randomization was stratified by clinical site.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The trial was not blinded, but clinical assessors and end point adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment.

    “The trial was not blinded, but clinical assessors and end point adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    It is unknown whether weight loss reduces the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

    “However, it is unknown whether weight loss reduces the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    With a planned sample size of 5000 participants, Look AHEAD had greater than 80% probability of detecting an 18% difference in major cardiovascular events between the two groups, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary outcome rate of 2% per year in the control group, and a planned maximum follow-up of 13.5 years.

    “With a planned sample size of 5000 participants, Look AHEAD had greater than 80% probability of detecting an 18% difference in major cardiovascular events between the two groups, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary outcome rate of 2% per year in the control group, and a planned maximum follow-up of 13.5 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Epidemiological studies in individuals with diabetes provide conflicting results, perhaps due to confounding from unintentional weight loss.

    “Epidemiological studies in individuals with diabetes provide conflicting results, perhaps due to confounding from unintentional weight loss.3”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    Weight loss is recommended for overweight and obese individuals with type 2 diabetes.

    “Weight loss is recommended for overweight and obese individuals with type 2 diabetes.1”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    When the intervention was stopped on September 14, 2012, the median follow-up was 9.6 years (interquartile range 8.9 to 10.3) and fewer than 4% of all randomized participants had been lost to follow-up.

    “When the intervention was stopped on September 14, 2012, the median follow-up was 9.6 years (interquartile range 8.9 to 10.3) and fewer than 4% of all randomized participants had been lost to follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The weight losses achieved in the intervention group are representative of the best that has been achieved with current lifestyle approaches.

    “However, our trial was planned to test the effects of intensive lifestyle intervention and the weight losses achieved in the intervention group are representative of the best that has been achieved with current lifestyle approaches.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study did not lack sufficient power to detect a difference in the primary outcome, because the 95% confidence interval for the primary outcome excluded the benefit of 18% or more targeted in the trial's design.

    “We do not feel this explains the negative result; the 95% confidence interval for the primary outcome excluded the benefit of 18% or more targeted in the trial’s design.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The hazard ratio for the primary outcome is constant over follow-up (proportional hazards).
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Look AHEAD showed that overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes can lose weight and maintain modest weight losses over 10 years.

    “Look AHEAD showed that overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes can lose weight and maintain modest weight losses over 10 years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The consistency of intervention effects on the primary outcome among three pre-specified subgroups (sex, race or ethnicity, and history of cardiovascular disease) was evaluated using interaction tests.

    “The consistency of intervention effects on the primary outcome among three pre-specified subgroups (sex, race or ethnicity and history of cardiovascular disease) was evaluated using interaction tests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and p<0.05 was used.

    “Results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and p<0.05 was used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Analyses of primary and secondary outcomes were performed using time-to-event methods according to the intention-to-treat principle as pre-specified in the protocol.

    “Analyses of primary and secondary outcomes were performed using time-to-event methods according to the intention-to-treat principle as pre-specified in the protocol.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    None of the corporate sponsors had any role in the trial design, data analysis, or reporting of results.

    “None of the corporate sponsors had any role in the trial design, data analysis, or reporting of results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
24 of 24
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The hazard ratio for the primary outcome is constant over follow-up (proportional hazards).

    “Two-sided p-values were calculated with likelihood-ratio tests from Cox proportional-hazards regression, with models containing terms for clinical site, history of cardiovascular disease, and intervention assignment.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The composite primary outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalized angina) is a valid and sufficient measure of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

    “The primary end point was the first post-randomization occurrence of a composite cardiovascular outcome.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants lost to follow-up did not differ systematically from those retained in a way that would bias the primary outcome comparison.

    “fewer than 4% of all randomized participants had been lost to follow-up.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Weight loss is perhaps the most effective therapeutic approach for preventing progression of cardiometabolic disease to type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular events.

    “Thus, weight loss is perhaps the most effective therapeutic approach for preventing the progression of CMD to T2D and/or CVD events.”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [674]

    The Abstract Conclusion and Discussion report that a weight-loss-focused lifestyle intervention did not significantly reduce cardiovascular events in overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes, contrary to the claim’s cardiovascular-events component. The trial enrolled people who already had type 2 diabetes, so it does not establish whether weight loss prevents progression to diabetes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Look Ahead trial, 6% weight loss over eight years yielded improvements in cardiovascular risk factors, glycemic control, lipids, less medication usage, and reduced hospitalizations and healthcare costs.

    “In the Look Ahead trial, 6% weight loss over eight years yielded improvements in a range of cardiovascular risk factors, including glycemic control and lipids, as well as less medication usage, and reduced hospitalizations and healthcare costs87,88.”

    From Maintenance of Lost Weight and Long-Term Management of Obesity (2018) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Results (Weight, Waist Circumference and Fitness; Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors) report 6.0% weight loss at study end, improved HbA1c and several cardiovascular risk factors, and lower use of antihypertensives, statins and insulin. But median follow-up was 9.6 years, not eight; LDL cholesterol was lower in the control group; and the Clinical Outcomes section found no significant difference in cardiovascular events, including hospitalized angina. Our copy does not report reduced overall hospitalizations or healthcare costs. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The anthropometric component is largely satisfied by BMI, which is used to diagnose individuals as lean (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2), or obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2).

    “The anthropometric component is largely satisfied by BMI, which is used to diagnose individuals as lean (BMI 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25 to 29.9 kg/m2), or obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2).”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [674]

    The Methods—Participants section (page not provided) uses BMI ≥25 kg/m² as an eligibility criterion, and the Abstract—Methods describes participants as overweight or obese. The paper does not give the claimed BMI ranges for lean, overweight, and obese individuals or say that BMI largely satisfies the anthropometric component. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Available evidence supports weight-loss therapy for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with prediabetes, blood pressure lowering, and improvements in osteoarthritis, mobility, and physical function.

    “because available evidence supports weight-loss therapy in these conditions.”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [674]

    The Results report greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c and sustained differences in systolic blood pressure; the Discussion reports benefits for mobility and physical function and cites other studies showing prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes. The copy does not establish an improvement in osteoarthritis specifically: its cited physical-function study concerns adults with knee pain. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In people with ABCD and prediabetes and/or metabolic syndrome, weight loss is highly effective for preventing progression to type 2 diabetes.

    “In persons with ABCD (both overweight or with obesity) and prediabetes and/or metabolic syndrome, weight loss is a highly effective way to prevent progression to T2D.674”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [674]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says intensive lifestyle intervention has been shown to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in other studies. It does not specify people with prediabetes or metabolic syndrome, or establish that weight loss itself is highly effective for that population; Look AHEAD enrolled people who already had type 2 diabetes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1056/nejmc1806491

    Info

    The cited work was retracted; the date of the notice is not on record.

    Cited work 10.1056/nejmc1806491 · retraction date not known · this paper published 2013-07-11

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1056/nejmoa1200303

    Info

    The cited work was retracted on 2018-06-13 (notice 10.1056/nejmc1806491), not before this paper was published (2013-07-11).

    Cited work 10.1056/nejmoa1200303 · retracted 2018-06-13 · notice 10.1056/nejmc1806491 · this paper published 2013-07-11

2 of 2

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The Look AHEAD Research Group
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
The Look AHEAD Research Group
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-07-11
Volume
369
Issue
2
Pages
145-154
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1957007052
Cited by
2,908
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 162 · 2025: 228 · 2024: 201 · 2023: 193 · 2022: 186 · 2021: 217 · 2020: 195 · 2019: 184 · 2018: 226 · 2017: 264 · 2016: 250 · 2015: 251 · 2014: 261 · 2013: 82 · 2012: 1
FWCI
221.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (M01RR01346)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (DK57151, UL1-RR024153, DK57219, DK57182, M01RR01066, DK57008, DK57178, DK57154, M01RR00051, DK57136, P30 DK48520, DK57171, DK57177, DK57149, DK57002, M01RR000056, DK56992, DK 046204, M01RR02719, M01RR01346, DK56990, DK57131, M01RR0021140, DK57078, DK57135)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (DK 046204, P30 DK48520, DK57182, DK57154, DK57002, DK57149, DK57178, M01RR01346, DK57135, DK57171, DK57151, DK57078, M01RR02719, UL1 RR 024153, DK57008, M01RR01066, M01RR000056, DK56990, DK57177, DK56992, M01RR0021140, DK57219, DK57136, DK57131, M01RR00051)
  • Johns Hopkins University (M01RR02719)
  • University of Pittsburgh (DK57131, DK57008, DK57154, M01RR01346, M01RR01066, DK57078, DK56990, DK57178, DK57002, DK57177, DK56992, P30 DK48520, DK 046204, M01RR02719, UL1RR024153, DK57151, M01RR0021140, DK57149, M01RR000056, M01RR00051, DK57136, DK57171, DK57219, DK57182, DK57135)
  • National Institutes of Health (M01RR0021140, UL1TR000005, 046204, 5p30dk046204-15, DK48520, DK 046204, DK57002)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (M01RR02719, M01RR000056, DK57135, DK57154, UL1RR024153, DK57131, M01RR00051, DK 046204, DK57008, M01RR01346, DK56992, M01RR0021140, DK57177, DK57151, P30 DK48520, M01RR01066, DK57182, DK57171, DK56990, DK57136, DK57149, DK57078, DK57219, DK57002, DK57178)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (DK57219, DK57131, DK57154, DK57151, K23HL109235, DK56992, DK57078, DK57177, M01RR0021140, DK 046204, DK57182, DK57002, DK57149, DK57008, DK57135, DK57136, DK57178, DK56990, DK57171)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (DK57219, DK57008, M01RR0021140, DK57002, DK57177, DK57171, DK57182, DK57135, DK57131, DK 046204, DK57151, DK57136, DK56990, DK57178, DK57078, DK56992, DK57149)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (M01RR0021140, DK48520, DK-57171, DK 57136, DK57149, DK 57002, DK57182, DK56990, (DK 046204, DK57008, DK57177, DK 57078, DK57219, U01DK057149, DK-57178, U01DK057151, U01DK057135, U01DK057131, U01DK056990, DK-57135, U01DK057136, DK-56992, DK57154, U01DK057178, U01DK057182, U01DK057078, R24DK084949, U01DK057154, P30DK079637, U01DK057008, U01DK057171, DK57131, U01DK057219, U01DK056992, U01DK057177, P30DK017047, P30DK048520, DK 57151)
  • National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (DK57136, DK57171, DK57182, DK57154, DK57177, DK 046204, DK57135, M01RR0021140, DK57008, DK57178, DK57002, DK57151, DK56990, DK57078, DK56992, DK57149, DK57219, DK57131)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01-RR-0021140, M01RR002719, M01RR000056, M01RR000051, M01RR001066, M01RR001346, UL1RR024153)
  • Office of Research on Women's Health (M01RR02719, DK57008, DK57135, DK56990, DK57002, P30 DK48520, DK57177, DK56992, DK57182, DK57151, DK57149, DK57219, DK57078, M01RR000056, M01RR01346, DK57171, UL1 RR 024153, DK57178, M01RR01066, M01RR00051, DK57154, DK57136, DK57131, DK 046204, M01RR0021140)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle intervention, weight loss, cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, diabetes support and education, HbA1c, physical activity, caloric restriction, obesity, Look AHEAD trial
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diet, Reducing, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Risk Factors, Weight Loss, Exercise, Treatment Failure, Overweight, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-16.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-16.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review