Contraction-mediated glucose uptake is increased in men with impaired glucose tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise superimposed on insulin stimulation is shown to increase muscle glucose metabolism and these two stimuli have synergistic effects. The objective of this study was to investigate glucose infusion rates (GIR) in groups with a wide variation in terms of insulin sensitivity during insulin stimulation alone and with superimposed exercise. Patients with type 2 diabetes, subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), healthy controls, and endurance-trained subjects were studied. The groups were matched for age and lean body mass (LBM), and differed in peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak), body fat percentage, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose concentration, and oral glucose-tolerance test (OGTT). Each subject underwent a two-step sequential hyperinsulinemic, euglycemic clamp. During the last 30 min of the 2nd clamp step, subjects exercised on a bicycle at 43% +/- 2% of VO2 peak. In agreement with the OGTT data, the presence of different GIR during insulin stimulation alone demonstrated varying levels of insulin sensitivity between groups. However, the impairment of GIR in IGT observed during insulin stimulation alone was abolished compared to controls when exercise was superimposed on insulin stimulation. Humans with IGT are resistant to insulin-stimulated but not to exercise-induced glucose uptake.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".