Impact of type 2 diabetes on cardiorespiratory function and exercise performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to examine the impact of well-controlled uncomplicated type 2 diabetes (T2D) on exercise performance. Six obese sedentary men with T2D and 7 control participants without diabetes matched for age, sex and body mass index were recruited. Anthropometric characteristics, blood samples, resting cardiac and pulmonary functions and maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2 max) and ventilatory threshold were measured on a first visit. On the four subsequent visits, participants performed step transitions (6 min) of moderate-intensity exercise on an upright cycle ergometer from unloaded pedaling to 80 % of ventilatory threshold. VO 2 (τVO 2 ) and HR (τHR) kinetics were characterized with a mono-exponential model. VO 2 max (27.8±4.0 vs. 27.5±5.3 ml kg -1 min -1 ; p=0.95), τVO 2 (43±6 vs. 43±10 s; p=0.73) and τHR (42±17 vs. 43±13 s; p=0.94) were similar between diabetics and controls respectively. The remaining variables were also similar between groups. These results suggest that well-controlled T2D is not associated with a reduction in VO 2 max or slower τVO 2 and τHR.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".