MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

From Rest to Stressed: Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Exhibit a Greater Exercise‐Induced Increase in Arterial Stiffness and Vessel Hemodynamics

2018· article· en· W3174698373 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexandra B. Cooke, Kaberi Dasgupta, Stella S. Daskalopoulou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiologyMedicineArterial stiffnessPulse wave velocityInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressureHemodynamicsBruce protocolType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusDiastolePulse pressureEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are known to have a greater blood pressure (BP) response to acute maximal exercise. The nature of this exaggerated response is likely a function of vascular abnormalities; therefore, we aimed to examine the exercise‐induced response of carotid‐femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), the gold‐standard measure of arterial stiffness, and other vessel hemodynamic parameters in adults with and without T2DM. Methods Adults with T2DM (n=77) and without T2DM (n=105) underwent an exercise test to volitional exhaustion on a treadmill (following a modified Bruce protocol). Using applanation tonometry (SphygmoCor), cfPWV and augmentation index corrected for a heart rate (HR) of 75 beats/min (AIx75) were assessed at rest, and immediately following exercise termination. At the same time points, peripheral BP, and HR were measured with an automated oscillometric BP monitor (BPTru). Linear regression models were used to evaluate between‐group differences in parameters at rest, as well as the absolute change of each parameter in response to exercise, with adjustments for exercise time and the baseline value. Results Mean age was 59.0±11.0 years and body mass index was 31.5±4.0 kg/m 2 (non‐significantly different between groups). All subjects had hypertension and were taking anti‐hypertensive medication (mean BP 130±14/80±9 mmHg). At rest, subjects with T2DM had significantly higher cfPWV (10.2±2.5 vs. 9.3±1.8 m/s), HR (70±12 vs. 66±10 beats/min), and lower diastolic BP (80±9 vs. 83±9 mmHg), but no significant difference in systolic BP (118±14 vs. 121±12 mmHg) or AIx75 (23±9 vs. 23±10%). In response to exercise, subjects with T2DM had a significantly greater increase in cfPWV by 1.3 m/s (95% CI 0.1, 2.4), systolic BP by 11.2 mmHg (95% CI 2.9, 19.5) and pulse pressure (PP) by 5.63 mmHg (95%CI 0.19, 11.08). A greater number of subjects with T2DM had a hypertensive (systolic BP>210 mmHg in men, and >190 mmHg in women) response to exercise (n=31, 30%) compared to subjects without T2DM (n=14, 18%). The increase in AIx75 was significantly lower in subjects with T2DM by 2.6% (95% CI −4.9, −0.2). Conclusion By incorporating exercise as a vascular stressor, we provide evidence of a greater increase in arterial stiffness, independently of exercise time and resting arterial stiffness. Despite no differences in systolic BP or PP at rest, we observed an exaggerated systolic BP response in subjects with T2DM, and importantly an altered arterial stiffness response to acute exercise. Therefore, evaluating the exercise‐induced response of arterial stiffness and hemodynamic parameters may serve as a useful model for evaluating vascular impairment and CVD risk in adults with T2DM. Support or Funding Information This work was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). KD and SSD hold salary awards from the Fonds de recherche du Québec‐Santé. ABC holds a PhD award from CIHR. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention→French-language works237,207→