Exercise Training Induced Cardioprotection with Moderate Hyperglycemia versus Sedentary Intensive Glycemic Control in Type 1 Diabetic Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive insulin therapy (IIT; 4–7 mmol/L) is the preferred treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, this treatment strategy has been questioned as it is accompanied with a sedentary lifestyle leading to weight gain and insulin resistance. T1DM patients who partake in high-intensity aerobic training ( AThigh ) to reduce CVD often utilize conventional insulin therapy (CIT; 9–15 mmol/L) to offset the risk of hypoglycemia. Moreover, exercise modalities incorporating resistance training (RT) have been shown to further reduce this risk. The purpose of this investigation was twofold: (1) to determine if CIT paired with AThigh results in larger cardioprotection from an ischemia-reperfusion (I-R) injury than IIT and (2) to establish if the integration of RT with AThigh (ART) results in similar cardioprotection as AThigh . Diabetic (D) male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into D-IIT ( n=12 ), D-CIT ( n=12 ), D-AThigh ( n=8 ), D-RT ( n=8 ), and D-ART ( n=8 ). T1DM was induced with streptozotocin, and blood glucose was adjusted with insulin. D-AThigh occurred on a treadmill (27 m/min; 1 hr), D-RT performed weighted ladder climbs, and D-ART alternated daily between AThigh and RT. Exercise occurred 5 days/wk for 12 wks. This investigation demonstrates that cardioprotection following an I-R injury was similar between D-AThigh and D-IIT. This cardioprotection is not exercise-specific, and each provides unique advantages. D-AThigh leads to improved glycemia while insulin sensitivity was enhanced following resistance exercises. Thus, exercise is an effective means to elicit cardioprotection in T1DM. However, in addition to glycemia, other factors should be considered when tailoring an exercise program for T1DM 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".