Effects of a three-month combined training program on the cardiopulmonary and muscle strength capacities of type 2 diabetic subjects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: For many years, exercise has been regarded as one of the three primary interventions to treat type 2 diabetes along with diet and medication. Combined exercise programs consisting of both aerobic and resistance training have been demonstrated to have more benefits in a sedentary population than either type of training alone. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of combined exercise training on physiological parameters (cardiopulmonary, blood, muscle) of a type 2 diabetic population. METHODS: Twelve type 2 diabetic patients (6 males and 6 females) performed a three-month combined exercise program comprised of two sessions of exercise per week. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, blood sampling, anthropometric measurements and strength tests were carried out on each subject before (PRE) and immediately after (POST) the training program. RESULTS: The VO2peak and the maximal aerobic power during exercise, the blood profile and the body mass were unchanged after the three-month training program. However, the oxygen uptake and the heart rate at submaximal exercise intensity were significantly lower after the three-month training and muscle strength for many muscle groups was significantly increased. CONCLUSION: These results highlighted the effectiveness of the combined training to improve submaximal cardiopulmonary efficiency and muscle strength capacity of type 2 diabetic patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".