Differences in Physiological Responses to Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Adults With and Without Type 1 Diabetes: A Pooled Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate physiological responses to cardiopulmonary exercise (CPX) testing in adults with type 1 diabetes compared with age-, sex-, and BMI-matched control participants without type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We compared results from CPX tests on a cycle ergometer in individuals with type 1 diabetes and control participants without type 1 diabetes. Parameters were peak and threshold variables of VO2, heart rate, and power output. Differences between groups were investigated through restricted maximum likelihood modeling and post hoc tests. Differences between groups were explained by stepwise linear regressions (P < 0.05). RESULTS Among 303 individuals with type 1 diabetes (age 33 [interquartile range 22; 43] years, 93 females, BMI 23.6 [22; 26] kg/m2, HbA1c 6.9% [6.2; 7.7%] [52 (44; 61) mmol/mol]), VO2peak (32.55 [26.49; 38.72] vs. 42.67 ± 10.44 mL/kg/min), peak heart rate (179 [170; 187] vs. 184 [175; 191] beats/min), and peak power (216 [171; 253] vs. 245 [200; 300] W) were lower compared with 308 control participants without type 1 diabetes (all P < 0.001). Individuals with type 1 diabetes displayed an impaired degree and direction of the heart rate-to-performance curve compared with control participants without type 1 diabetes (0.07 [−0.75; 1.09] vs. 0.66 [−0.28; 1.45]; P < 0.001). None of the exercise physiological responses were associated with HbA1c in individuals with type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Individuals with type 1 diabetes show altered responses to CPX testing, which cannot be explained by HbA1c. Intriguingly, the participants in our cohort were people with recent-onset type 1 diabetes; heart rate dynamics were altered during CPX testing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".