ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Intermittent energy restriction and risk of physician-diagnosed diabetes progression: a propensity-weighted real-world cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intermittent energy restriction (IER) shows metabolic promise, but real-world evidence for its impact on clinically meaningful outcomes is lacking. This study evaluated the effect of IER on a novel composite endpoint of early, physician-diagnosed diabetes progression (PDDP), which includes microvascular complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy), acute metabolic decompensation (diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state), and peripheral arterial disease. Materials and methods: In a large real-world retrospective cohort study, 1,069 participants following a structured 5:10 IER regimen were compared with 1,099 controls. The primary outcome was the incidence of PDDP, a composite of the progression of diabetes-related events diagnosed by clinical doctors. Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose (FPG) change and diabetes medication reduction. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multivariate models were used to control for confounders. A sensitivity analysis was restricted to patients without PDDP at baseline ( Results: The IER group demonstrated a substantially lower incidence of PDDP compared to controls (2% vs. 10%; Conclusion: In a real-world setting, IER was associated with a dramatically lower risk of PDDP, independent of its glucose-lowering effect. These findings position IER as a potent, scalable non-pharmacological strategy to improve patient-centered outcomes in diabetes care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.