The association between cardiorespiratory fitness, liver fat and insulin resistance in adults with or without type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise-induced improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) often coincide with improvements in insulin sensitivity and reductions in liver fat content. However, there are limited data concerning the relationship between CRF and liver fat content in adults with varying degrees of metabolic dysfunction. METHODS: The aim of this study was to examine the association between CRF, liver fat content, and insulin resistance in inactive adults with obesity and with or without type 2 diabetes (T2D), via cross-sectional analysis. CRF was determined via a graded exercise test. Liver fat content was assessed via proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and insulin resistance was assessed via homeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). A partial correlation analysis, controlling for age and gender, was performed to determine the association between CRF, demographic, cardiometabolic, and anthropometric variables. Independent t tests were performed to compare cardiometabolic outcomes between participants with T2D and participants without T2D. RESULTS: , liver fat content of 8.37 ± 6.90%, HOMA-IR of 3.07 ± 2.33 and CRF of 21.52 ± 3.77 mL/kg/min participated in this study. CRF was inversely associated with liver fat content (r = - 0.28, p = 0.019) and HOMA-IR (r = - 0.40, p < 0.001). Participants with T2D had significantly higher liver fat content (+ 3.66%, p = 0.024) and HOMA-IR (+ 2.44, p < 0.001) than participants without T2D. Participants with T2D tended to have lower CRF than participants without T2D (- 1.5 ml/kg/min, p = 0.094). CONCLUSION: CRF was inversely associated with liver fat content and insulin resistance. Participants with T2D had lower CRF than those without T2D, however, the difference was not statistically significant. Further longitudinal studies are required to elucidate the relationship between CRF and the progression of obesity-related diseases such as T2D. Registration: ACTRN12614001220651 (retrospectively registered on the 19th November 2014) and ACTRN12614000723684 (prospectively registered on the 8th July 2014).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".