MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is Oxygen Consumption and Oxygen Delivery During Leg Exercise Compromised in Type II Diabetes?

2010· article· en· W2055612271 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Pak, Jaclyn Moynes, Veronica J. Poitras, Michael E. Tschakovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionMedicineInternal medicineVO2 maxType 2 diabetesCardiologyEndocrinologyExercise physiologyBlood flowRespiratory exchange ratioHeart rateDiabetes mellitusBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence is emerging that muscle oxygen delivery and possibly also muscle oxygen consumption responses may be blunted in type II diabetes (T2D). PURPOSE: To determine whether dynamic and steady state adjustments in VO2 to exercise are impaired in T2D and whether this is accompanied by slower and/or reduced muscle blood flow responses. METHODS: Four males with T2D (54.8 ± 4.1 yrs) and six healthy, activity matched male controls (CON) (44.3 ± 2.7 yrs) performed 3 protocols of supine, two-leg knee extension/flexion exercise i) incremental exercise to exhaustion, ii) rest to low intensity step (LO7.5kg; 7.5 kg resistance), iii) rest to moderate intensity step (VT90%; 90% of ventilatory threshold) on separate days. Femoral artery blood flow (FABF; Doppler and Echo ultrasound), and VO2 (Metabolic Cart) were measured continuously at rest and throughout exercise. RESULTS: Means are ±SE. Fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c% were elevated in T2D vs. CON (8.2 ± 1.1 vs. 5.6 ± 0.3 mmol/L, P=0.035; 7.4 ± 0.9 vs. 5.3 ± 0.1 %, P=0.023). Neither peak VO2 nor peak work rate were different in T2D vs. CON (1711.1 ± 170.8 vs. 1852.0 ± 162.0 ml/min, P= 0.579; 16.4 ± 1.0 vs. 18.7 ± 1.4 kg) indicating matched fitness. For rest to exercise steps: the change from baseline (D) for VO2 was not different between groups at any time point for LO7.5kg (P=0.351), but DFABF in the rapid initial phase I response was blunted in T2D (FABF for two legs; 2120.4 ± 218.4 ml/min vs. 3435.6 ± 275.0, P= 0.018). Mean response time (MRT; time required to achieve 63% of the total response magnitude) tended to be slower (LO7.5kg; 23.1 ± 4.2s vs. 14.3 ± 1.7s; VT90%: 40.0 ± 7.5s vs.26.2 ± 3.5s; P=0.095). For incremental exercise: DVO2 was not different between groups at 7.5, 10 and 13 kg (P=0.264). DFABF in T2D was not statistically significantly reduced (P=0.098), whereas absolute FABF was lower at rest 617.0 ± 22.1 vs.959.8 ± 111.3 ml/min, P=0.04) and 10 and 13 kg workloads (P=0.035 and 0.007 respectively). Movement artifact prevented FABF measures above these work rates. CONCLUSIONS: T2D is characterized by impaired vasodilatory mechanisms involved in the rapid initial response to exercise, and may impair blood flow adjustments to incremental exercise. However, these effects do not impair increases in VO2, indicating increased oxygen extraction compensates in this exercise model.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207