MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999976322

Does sex influence the effect of mixed mode exercise training on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity and inflammatory markers in overweight/obese, sedentary males and females?

2023· dissertation· en· W6999976322 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdipokines, Inflammation, and Metabolic Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicAerobic exerciseDiabetes mellitusCmaxInsulinType 2 diabetesInsulin resistanceType 2 Diabetes Mellitus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is prevalent within Canada, with a prediction of 5 million people living with this condition by 2025. Exercise reduces the risk of T2D by improving insulin sensitivity. However, recent trials have suggested that exercise training may be less efficacious at improving insulin sensitivity in females compared with males, which could have implications for the prevention and management of T2D in females. The purpose of this research was to examine whether sex influenced the effectiveness of mixed-mode training on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity and inflammation in overweight/obese individuals. Methods: Twenty-seven overweight/obese, sedentary males (n=12) and females (n=15) were recruited for a 12-week mixed-mode, exercise intervention. Prior to training, participants underwent anthropometric, aerobic fitness (V̇O2max test), strength (3-5 RM test) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) assessments. Training consisted of 3 weekly sessions involving 30 minutes of aerobic and 30 minutes of resistance training. Results: There was no sex difference in glucose AUC (p=0.22, ηp2=0.03) or Cmax (p=0.14, ηp2=0.03); however, when adjusted for the glucose dose relative to LBM, males had a higher glucose AUC (p=0.002, ηp2=0.18) and Cmax (p=0.001, ηp2=0.19) than females. TNF-α, (p=0.04, ηp2=0.13) and MIP-1β (p=0.006, ηp2=0.20) were higher in males than females. There was no effect of training on glycemic control, insulin resistance/sensitivity indices, pancreatic β-cell function or inflammatory markers. However, the absolute change in glucose AUC (males: -99.8 mmol/L·120min, females +58.3 mmol/L·120min, p=0.01, d=1.06), Cmax (males: -0.60 mmol/L, females +0.7 mmol/L, p=0.04, d=0.87) and IL-1ra (males: -18.2 pg/mL, females +28.9 pg/mL, p=0.02, d=1.20) differed between the sexes. . Conclusion: Changes in glycemic control and inflammation following training differed between males and females. A sex difference was seen in inflammatory markers; however, further research is required. Finally, females had lower glucose AUC and Cmax relative to LBM compared to males, which questions the use of a standard 75g glucose dose during an OGTT as a measure of impaired glucose tolerance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicAdipokines, Inflammation, and Metabolic DiseasesFrench-language works237,207