Impact of type 2 diabetes on cardiorespiratory function and exercise performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the impact of well-controlled uncomplicated type 2 diabetes (T2D) on exercise performance. Ten obese sedentary men with T2D and nine control participants without diabetes matched for age, sex, and body mass index were recruited. Anthropometric characteristics, blood samples, resting cardiac, and pulmonary functions and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and ventilatory threshold were measured on a first visit. On the four subsequent visits, participants (diabetics: n = 6; controls: n = 7) performed step transitions (6 min) of moderate-intensity exercise on an upright cycle ergometer from unloaded pedaling to 80% of ventilatory threshold. VO2 (τVO2) and HR (τHR) kinetics were characterized with a mono-exponential model. VO2max (27.0 ± 3.4 vs. 26.7 ± 5.0 mL kg−1 min−1; P = 0.85), τVO2 (43 ± 6 vs. 43 ± 10 sec; P = 0.73), and τHR (42 ± 17 vs. 43 ± 13 sec; P = 0.94) were similar between diabetics and controls respectively. The remaining variables were also similar between groups, with the exception of lower maximal systolic blood pressure in diabetics (P = 0.047). These results suggest that well-controlled T2D is not associated with a reduction in VO2max or slower τVO2 and τHR.
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".