Exercise Training Benefits Growth Hormone (GH)-Deficient Adults in the Absence or Presence of GH Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reduced aerobic capacity is a prominent manifestation among patients with GH deficiency (GHD). Exercise training may improve the physiological capacity to undertake aerobic activity. The ability of patients with GHD to participate in and benefit from a structured program of aerobic exercise with or without replacement recombinant human GH (rhGH) was investigated. We examined the effect of aerobic training on cycle ergometers in a double-blind crossover trial. Ten patients with GHD trained for 3 months with rhGH (6 microg/kg.d) or placebo, stopped both exercise and drug for 2 months, and resumed training for another 3 months with the other agent. Peak oxygen uptake (VO(2)peak) and ventilation threshold (VeT) were measured during a progressive cycle ergometer test to fatigue or symptom-limited maximum. Serum IGF-I levels were monitored to assess compliance with GH treatment. VO(2)peak was low at the two baseline measures (B1, 19.3 +/- 5.5; B2, 19.9 +/- 6.9 ml/kg.min; normal, approximately 30 ml/kg.min) as was VeT (B1, 11.6 +/- 2.2 ml/kg.min; B2, 11.7 +/- 2.6 ml/kg.min; normal, approximately 16 ml/kg.min). Exercise training increased VeT with (8.6%) or without (9.4%) rhGH treatment. Similarly, exercise training resulted in significant reduction in submaximal heart rate in the presence (-5 +/- 4 beats per minute; P < 0.05) or absence of rhGH treatment (-4 +/- 4 beats per minute; P < 0.05). Peak oxygen uptake was not significantly affected by training with or without rhGH treatment. Our findings suggest that exercise training is a feasible intervention in GH-deficient adults that can measurably improve their submaximal responses to exercise. The beneficial effects of exercise can mimic and are not additive to the effects of GH treatment alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".