Type 1 diabetes modulates cyclooxygenase- and nitric oxide-dependent mechanisms governing sweating but not cutaneous vasodilation during exercise in the heat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both cyclooxygenase (COX) and nitric oxide synthase (NOS) contribute to sweating, whereas NOS alone contributes to cutaneous vasodilation during exercise in the heat. Here, we evaluated if Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) modulates these responses. Adults with ( n = 11, 25 ± 5 yr) and without ( n = 12, 24 ± 4 yr) T1DM performed two bouts of 30-min cycling at a fixed rate of heat production of 400 W in the heat (35°C); each followed by a 20- and 40-min recovery period, respectively. Sweat rate and cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC) were measured at four intradermal microdialysis sites treated with either 1) lactated Ringer (vehicle control site), 2) 10 mM ketorolac (nonselective COX inhibitor), 3) 10 mM NG-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester (nonselective NOS inhibitor), or 4) a combination of both inhibitors. In nondiabetic adults, separate and combined inhibition of COX and NOS reduced exercise sweat rate ( P ≤ 0.05), and the magnitude of reductions were similar across sites. In individuals with T1DM, inhibition of COX resulted in an increase in sweat rate of 0.10 ± 0.09 and 0.09 ± 0.08 mg·min−1·cm−2for the first and second exercise bouts, respectively, relative to vehicle control site ( P ≤ 0.05), whereas NOS inhibition had no effect on sweating. In both groups, NOS inhibition reduced CVC during exercise ( P ≤ 0.05), although the magnitude of reduction did not differ between the nondiabetic and T1DM groups ( exercise 1: −28 ± 10 vs. −23 ± 8% max, P = 0.51; exercise 2: −31 ± 12 vs. −24 ± 10% max, P = 0.38). We show that in individuals with T1DM performing moderate intensity exercise in the heat, NOS-dependent sweating but not cutaneous vasodilation is attenuated, whereas COX inhibition increases sweating.
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) | 0.000 | 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".