Women with type 2 diabetes perceive harder effort during exercise than nondiabetic women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular exercise is a cornerstone of diabetes treatment; however, people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are commonly sedentary. It is possible that a harder rate of perceived exertion (RPE) during exercise for those with T2D as compared with nondiabetics may be a barrier to physical activity. This study examined RPE (Borg scale, ordinal range 6-20) during submaximal exercise at identical absolute work rates to test the hypothesis that women with T2D demonstrate harder RPE during exercise than nondiabetic controls. In a prespecified analysis of existing data from equivalently sedentary women, RPE during submaximal exercise was compared among women with uncomplicated T2D (n = 13, mean body mass index (BMI) 34.2, mean hemoglobin A1c 9%), overweight controls (OC, n = 13, mean BMI 30.7), and normal-weight controls (NWC, n = 13, mean BMI 23.1). Subjects performed three 7 min, constant-load exercise tests at 20 W and 30 W. Mixed-effects general linear modeling was used to test for differences in mean RPE estimates among groups with and without adjustment for relative work intensity, age, habitual physical activity, or BMI. Subjects with T2D perceived harder effort during bicycling exercise than controls, as measured by RPE at 20 W and 30 W (p < 0.05 for T2D vs. OC and for T2D vs. NWC). Adjusting for relative work intensity eliminated significant group RPE differences at 30 W, but group RPE differences at 20 W remained significant. Harder perceived effort during exercise may be a barrier to physical activity for those with T2D.
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) | 0.003 | 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".