Meal-related increases in microvascular vasomotion are impaired in obese individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims/hypothesisThe Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise (DARE) study showed that aerobic and resistance exercise training each improved glycaemic control and that a combination of both was superior to either type alone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Here we report effects on patient-reported health status and well-being in the DARE Trial.Methods We randomised 218 inactive participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus in parallel to 22 weeks of aerobic exercise (n=51), resistance exercise (n=58), combined aerobic and resistance exercise (n=57) or no exercise (control; n=52).Intervention allocation was managed by a central office.Outcomes included health status as assessed by the physical and mental component scores of the Medical Outcomes Trust Short-Form 36-item version (SF-36) and well-being as measured by the Well-Being Questionnaire 12-item version (WBQ-12); these were measured at the Ottawa Hospital.Results Using a p value of 0.0125 for statistical significance due to multiple comparisons, mixed model analyses indicated that resistance exercise led to clinically but not statistically significant improvements in the SF-36 physical component score compared with aerobic exercise (Δ=2.7 points; p=0.048) and control (i.e.no exercise; Δ=3.3 points; p=0.015).For mental component scores, there were clinically important improvements favouring no (control) compared with resistance (Δ=7.6 points; p<0.001) and combined (Δ=7.2 points; p<0.001) exercise.No effects on WBQ-12 scores were noted.Overall, 59/218 (27%) of participants included in this analysis sustained an adverse event during the course of the study, including 16 participants in the combined exercise group, 19 participants in the resistance exercise group, 16 participants in the
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".