Elevated peak exercise systolic blood pressure is not associated with reduced exercise capacity in subjects with Type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjects with Type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular disease have a reduced exercise capacity compared with nondiabetic subjects. However, the mechanisms responsible for this phenomenon are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of exercise systolic blood pressure (SBP) response on diverse exercise tolerance parameters in Type 2 diabetic subjects. Twenty-eight sedentary men with Type 2 diabetes were recruited for this study. Subjects were treated with oral hypoglycemic agents and/or diet. Evaluation of glycemic control and peak exercise capacity were performed for each subject. The subjects were divided into two groups according to the median value of peak SBP (210 mmHg) measured in each subject. We observed a 13, 13, and 16% reduction in the relative peak oxygen uptake (V(O2 peak)), absolute V(O2 peak), and peak work rate in the low- compared with the high-peak SBP group [26.95 (SD 5.35) vs. 30.96 (SD 3.61) ml.kg(-1).min(-1), 2.5 (SD 0.4) vs. 2.8 (SD 0.6) l/min, and 169 (SD 34) vs. 202 (SD 32) W; all P < 0.05]. After adjusting for age, relative V(O2 peak) was still significantly different (P < 0.05). There were similar peak respiratory exchange ratio (RER) [1.20 (SD 0.08) vs. 1.16 (SD 0.07); P = 0.24] and peak heart rate [160 (SD 20) vs. 169 (SD 15) beats/min; P = 0.18] between the low- compared with the high-SBP group. No difference in glycemic control was observed between the two groups. The results reported in this study suggest that in subjects with Type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular disease, an elevated exercise SBP is not associated with reduced exercise capacity and its modulation is probably not related to glycemic control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".