The Evaluation of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Related Changes in Diastolic Dysfunction During Exercise Using Conventional and Tissue Doppler Echocardiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between changes in diastolic functions during exercise and the exercising capacity in diabetic patients with diastolic dysfunction and to compare them with healthy individuals and diabetic patients without diastolic dysfunction. METHODS: Totally 70 patients prospectively were included in the study and three groups were formed. Forty-six diabetic patients were divided into two groups: those with (group 1) and without (group 2) diastolic dysfunction. The control group (group 3) consisted of 24 patients. All patients were subjected to treadmill exercising test. Echocardiographical assessment was made before exercise and immediately after peak exercise. RESULTS: Exercising time was dramatically decreased in group 1 compared to the other groups (group 1: 396 ± 125 second, group 2: 487 ± 66 second and group 3: 519 ± 102 second). In group 1, the diastolic mitral flow pattern at rest was transformed into pseudo-normal pattern at peak exercise from abnormal relaxation pattern (E/A ratio 0.70 ± 0.11 during rest, 1.02 ± 0.16; P < 0.0001 during peak exercise). Deceleration time (DT) and iso-volumetric relaxation time (IVRT) turned to normal values (DT 238.86 ± 39.48 millisecond during rest and 199.5 ± 23.57 millisecond during peak exercise; P = 0.001, IVRT 102.83 ± 16.22 millisecond during rest and 74.36 ± 8.67 millisecond during peak exercise; P = 0.001). In groups 2 and 3, the mitral flow pattern, DT and IVRT remained within normal limits during rest and exercise. E/Em ratio, which is one of the parameters of tissue Doppler, increased during peak exercise in the diabetic group with diastolic dysfunction (E/Em ratio 7.85 ± 3.31 during rest and 11.14 ± 3.40 after peak exercise; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients with diastolic dysfunction demonstrated a reduced exercise capacity, which may be due to aggravation of pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction.
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) | 0.001 | 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".