Impact of Beta-Blockade on Exercise Capacity in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Beta-blockers are prescribed to subjects with type 2 diabetes with coronary disease to reduce all-cause mortality. However, this medication reduces exercise capacity in non diabetic individuals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of beta-blockade on exercise capacity in diabetic subjects free of coronary disease. Methods: Ten sedentary men with type 2 diabetes participated in this study. Subjects were treated with oral hypoglycemic agents and/or diet. Exercise capacity was evaluated using an incremental protocol performed on a cycle ergometer. Subjects were evaluated without (WBB group) and following the use of a beta-blocker (Atenolol 100 mg, id) for 5 consecutive days (BB group). Results: Per study design, subjects were their own control. The BB situation was characterized by a lower resting heart rate (HR) (54±4 vs 74±12 bpm; P < 0.001) and a trend toward a lower resting systolic blood pressure (SBP) (123±11 vs 131±14 mmHg; P=0.1) compared to the WBB evaluation. Even with comparable peak workload achieved (193±27 vs 200±22 watts), there was a 13 % reduction in relative and absolute values of peak oxygen uptake (25.8±3.4 vs 29.7±4.1 ml·kg-1·min-1; P < 0.05 and 2.5±0.5 vs 2.9±0.6 L·min-1 respectively; P < 0.001), a 35 % reduction in peak HR (110±9 vs 169±14 bpm; P < 0.001) and a 21 % reduction in peak SBP (167±24 vs 211±20 mmHg; P < 0.001) in the BB compared to the WBB situation. Also, the BB situation showed a lower peak minute-ventilation (97±15 vs 120±24 L/min; P < 0.05) compared with WBB. Conclusion: These results suggest that in subjects with type 2 diabetes free of coronary disease, the use of a beta-blockers impedes cardio-respiratory function at peak exercise beyond compensatory mechanisms leading to a decreased exercise capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".