Exercise intolerance in Type 2 diabetes: is there a cardiovascular contribution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is critically important for Type 2 diabetes management, yet adherence levels are poor. This might be partly due to disproportionate exercise intolerance. Submaximal exercise tolerance is highly sensitive to muscle oxygenation; impairments in exercising muscle oxygen delivery may contribute to exercise intolerance in Type 2 diabetes since there is considerable evidence for the existence of both cardiac and peripheral vascular dysfunction. While uncompromised cardiac output during submaximal exercise is consistently observed in Type 2 diabetes, it remains to be determined whether an elevated cardiac sympathetic afferent reflex could sympathetically restrain exercising muscle blood flow. Furthermore, while deficits in endothelial function are common in Type 2 diabetes and are often cited as impairing exercising muscle oxygen delivery, no direct evidence in exercise exists, and there are several other vasoregulatory mechanisms whose dysfunction could contribute. Finally, while there are findings of impaired oxygen delivery, conflicting evidence also exists. A definitive conclusion that Type 2 diabetes compromises exercising muscle oxygen delivery remains premature. We review these potentially dysfunctional mechanisms in terms of how they could impair oxygen delivery in exercise, evaluate the current literature on whether an oxygen delivery deficit is actually manifest, and correspondingly identify key directions for future research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".