Effects of exercise training and sex on dynamic responses of O<sub>2</sub> uptake in type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of training and sex on oxygen uptake dynamics during exercise in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are not well established. We tested the hypotheses that exercise training improves the time constant of the primary phase of oxygen uptake (τp oxygen uptake) and with greater effect in males than females. Forty-one subjects with T2DM were assigned to 2 training groups (Tmale, Tfemale) and 2 control groups (Cmale, Cfemale), and were assessed before and after a 12-week intervention period. Twelve weeks of aerobic/resistance training was performed 3 times per week, 60–90 min per session. Assessments included ventilatory threshold (VT), peak oxygen uptake, τp oxygen uptake (80%VT), and dynamic responses of cardiac output, mean arterial pressure and systemic vascular conductance (80%VT). Training significantly decreased τp oxygen uptake in males by a mean of 20% (Tmale = 42.7 ± 6.2 to 34.3 ± 7.2 s) and females by a mean of 16% (Tfemale = 42.2 ± 9.3 to 35.4 ± 8.6 s); whereas τp oxygen uptake was not affected in controls (Cmale = 41.6 ± 9.8 to 42.9 ± 7.6 s; Cfemale = 40.4 ± 12.2 to 40.6 ± 13.4 s). Training increased peak oxygen uptake in both sexes (12%–13%) but did not alter systemic cardiovascular dynamics in either sex. Training improved oxygen uptake dynamics to a similar extent in males and females in the absence of changes in systemic cardiovascular dynamics. Novelty Similar training improvements in oxygen uptake dynamics were observed in males and females with T2DM. In both sexes these improvements occurred without changes in systemic cardiovascular dynamics.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".