Cerebral vs. Cardiovascular Responses to Exercise in Type 2 Diabetic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human brain is constantly active and even small limitations to cerebral blood flow (CBF) may be critical for preserving oxygen and substrate supply, e.g., during exercise and hypoxia. Exhaustive exercise evokes a competition for the supply of oxygenated blood between the brain and the working muscles, and inability to increase cardiac output sufficiently during exercise may jeopardize cerebral perfusion of relevance for diabetic patients. The challenge in diabetes care is to optimize metabolic control to slow progression of vascular disease, but likely because of a limited ability to increase cardiac output, these patients perceive aerobic exercise to be more strenuous than healthy subjects and that limits the possibility to apply physical activity as a preventive lifestyle intervention. In this review, we consider the effects of functional activation by exercise on the brain and how it contributes to understanding the control of CBF with the limited exercise tolerance experienced by type 2 diabetic patients. Whether a decline in cerebral oxygenation and thereby reduced neural drive to working muscles plays a role for "central" fatigue during exhaustive exercise is addressed in relation to brain's attenuated vascular response to exercise in type 2 diabetic subjects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".