Inter‐individual differences in rapid vasodilation in older males with and without type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE To identify if rapid vasodilatory responses differ between individuals with or without type 2 diabetes. METHODS 13 males (7 type II diabetics (T2D), 6 healthy controls (CON)) lay supine with the arm at heart level and completed 6 trials of single handgripping contractions (3 trials/day/contraction intensity, on 2 separate days, 1 s contraction duration) at 10, 20, and 40 % of their maximal voluntary contraction (randomly ordered). Forearm brachial artery blood flow (FBF, echo and Doppler ultrasound), mean arterial pressure (MAP, finger photoplethysmography) were measured continuously. RESULTS tension‐time integral of single contraction force production (kg·s) vs. FBF relationships were constructed for each individual. There was no difference in the slope (4.7 ± 2.9 vs. 4.8 ± 2.5) or y‐intercept (y‐int) (35.2 ± 32.5 vs. 23.3 ± 15.2) between T2D and CON. However, there was considerable variation in both the slope and y‐int between subjects in each group. T2D coefficient of variation (COV) of slope was 64% and y‐int was 93%. COV for the slope in CON was 52% and y‐int 65%. Despite the variation, the r 2 value for each individual was strong, ranging from 0.34–0.7 (σ = 0.51 ± 0.14) in T2D and 0.44–0.97 (σ = 0.76 ± 0.22) in CON. CONCLUSION Older males exhibit substantial inter‐individual rapid vasodilatory responses to muscle contraction. These individual differences do not appear to be influenced by type 2 diabetes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".