Combining metformin and aerobic exercise training in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and NAFLD in OLETF rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we sought to compare the efficacy of combining exercise and metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in hyperphagic, obese, type 2 diabetic Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats. OLETF rats (age: 20 wk, hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic; n = 10/group) were randomly assigned to sedentary (O-SED), SED plus metformin (O-SED + M; 300 mg·kg(-1)·day(-1)), moderate-intensity exercise training (O-EndEx; 20 m/min, 60 min/day, 5 days/wk treadmill running), or O-EndEx + M groups for 12 wk. Long-Evans Tokushima Otsuka (L-SED) rats served as nonhyperphagic controls. O-SED + M, O-EndEx, and O-EndEx + M were effective in the management of type 2 diabetes, and all three treatments lowered hepatic steatosis and serum markers of liver injury; however, O-EndEx lowered liver triglyceride content and fasting hyperglycemia more than O-SED + M. In addition, exercise elicited greater improvements compared with metformin alone on postchallenge glycemic control, liver diacylglycerol content, hepatic mitochondrial palmitate oxidation, citrate synthase, and β-HAD activities and in the attenuation of markers of hepatic fatty acid uptake and de novo fatty acid synthesis. Surprisingly, combining metformin and aerobic exercise training offered little added benefit to these outcomes, and in fact, metformin actually blunted exercise-induced increases in complete mitochondrial palmitate oxidation and β-HAD activity. In conclusion, aerobic exercise training was more effective than metformin administration in the management of type 2 diabetes and NAFLD outcomes in obese hyperphagic OLETF rats. Combining therapies offered little additional benefit beyond exercise alone, and findings suggest that metformin potentially impairs exercise-induced hepatic mitochondrial adaptations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".