PO-078 Effects of aerobic and resistance training on cardiac diastolic dysfunction in type 2 diabetic rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the effects of two types of physical training on cardiac diastolic dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus and investigate the role of passive tension regulators—titin and collagen.
 Methods Sprague-Dawley (SD) male rats were divided into two groups: control and diabetes. Each group was subdivided into three subgroups: sedentary rats, rats submitted to aerobic trained and rats submitted to resistance training. Diabetic rats were induced by high-fat diet combined with low-dose injections of streptozocin (STZ). Aerobic trained rats ran on a treadmill at 21m/min for 60 min per day, while resistance trained rats climbed a ladder with incremental loads. The train period lasted for 8 weeks.
 Results All diabetic rats had increased fasting blood glucose (FBG) and left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP), a lower down stroke of the pressure curve (dp/dt min), longer exponential time constants of relaxation (Tau) in relation to control rats, while the protein expression of titin was decreased significantly, and the expression of collagen I, TGFβ1 were increased slightly, the ratio of type I and III collagen was raised in diabetic rats. Both types of training promoted a decrease in FBG and HOMA-IR in diabetic rats. Aerobic exercise trained diabetic rats had significant higher –dp/dtmin, and shorter Tau, but -dp/dtmin and Tau in resistance exercise trained diabetic rats had no significant been improved, even more aggravation. Moreover, aerobic training increased the protein expression of titin and HSP27, and the amount of co-localization of titin and HSP27 elevated, the protein expression of collagen I, TGFβ1 were decreased, and the ratio of type I and type III got close to normal. Resistance training further decreased the expression of titin, collagen I, and TGFβ1, collagen volume fraction (CVF) was increased significantly, and the ratio of type I and III collagen was disturbed, but the co-localization of titin and HSP27 elevated slightly.
 Conclusions Aerobic training ameliorates cardiac diastolic dysfunction in diabetes and this improvement may be related to increase titin repaired by HSP27, while resistance training aggravates the cardiac diastolic dysfunction in early diabetes mellitus and it could be caused by worsening myocardial interstitial fibrosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".