Sex Differences in the Feasibility of Aerobic Exercise Training for Improving Cardiometabolic Health Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Females with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a 25–50% greater risk of developing cardiovascular disease compared with males. While aerobic exercise training is effective for improving cardiometabolic health outcomes, there is limited sex-segregated evidence on the feasibility of aerobic training in adults with T2D. A secondary analysis of a 12-week randomized controlled trial examining aerobic training in inactive adults with T2D was conducted. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, retention, treatment fidelity, and safety. Sex differences and intervention effects were assessed using two-way analyses of variances. Thirty-five participants (14 females) were recruited. The recruitment rate was significantly lower among females (9% versus 18%; p = 0.022). Females in the intervention were less adherent (50% versus 93%; p = 0.016), and experienced minor adverse events more frequently (0.08% versus 0.03%; p = 0.003). Aerobically trained females experienced clinically meaningful reductions in pulse wave velocity (−1.25 m/s, 95%CI [−2.54, 0.04]; p = 0.648), and significantly greater reductions in brachial systolic pressure (−9 mmHg, 95%CI (3, 15); p = 0.011) and waist circumference (−3.8 cm, 95%CI (1.6, 6.1); p < 0.001) than males. To enhance the feasibility of future trials, targeted strategies to improve female recruitment and adherence are needed. Females with T2D may experience greater cardiometabolic health improvements from aerobic training than males.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".