Rosiglitazone lowers resting and blood pressure response to exercise in men with type 2 diabetes: <scp>A</scp> 1‐year randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We aimed to determine the effect of 1-year treatment with the insulin sensitizer peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-γ agonist rosiglitazone on exercise capacity and blood pressure (BP) response to exercise in men with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: ) and BP response to exercise were assessed with a maximal treadmill test, prior to the intervention and at 1-year follow-up. Exercise-induced hypertension (EIH) was defined as maximal systolic BP ≥ 220 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 100 mm Hg. RESULTS: PPAR-γ agonist-treated patients showed improvements in fasting glucose, HbA1c and insulin sensitivity (Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]) (all P < .05). Resting BPs, maximal exercise diastolic BP and resting rate-pressure product (RPP) were all reduced in the PPAR-γ agonist group (P < .05). Maximal exercise duration was unchanged. T2D patients who displayed the greatest improvement in insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR) under PPAR-γ agonist treatment experienced a greater reduction in exercise BP and RPP (P < .05). The proportion of men with EIH decreased in the PPAR-γ agonist group during follow-up (39.00% ± 0.06% vs 21.00% ± 0.05%). In the subgroup with EIH that was treated with a PPAR-γ agonist, resting and exercise diastolic BP, as well as resting RPP, were all reduced at 1-year follow-up (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The insulin sensitizer rosiglitazone has a beneficial effect on resting and BP response to exercise in men with CAD and T2D, especially in those with an exaggerated BP response to exercise.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".