Abnormal neurovascular control during exercise is linked to heart failure severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if abnormalities of sympathetic neural and vascular control are present in mild and/or severe heart failure (HF) and to determine the underlying afferent mechanisms. Patients with severe HF, mild HF, and age-matched controls were studied. Muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) and forearm vascular resistance (FVR) in the nonexercising arm were measured during mild and moderate static handgrip. MSNA during moderate handgrip was higher at baseline and throughout exercise in severe HF vs. mild HF (peak MSNA 67 +/- 3 vs. 54 +/- 3 bursts/min, P < 0.0001) and higher in mild HF vs. controls (33 +/- 3 bursts/min, P < 0.0001), but the change in MSNA was not different between the groups. The change in FVR was not significantly different between the three groups during static exercise. During isolation of muscle metaboreceptors, MSNA and blood pressure remained elevated in normal controls and mild HF but not in severe HF. During mild handgrip, the increase in MSNA was exaggerated in severe HF vs. controls and mild HF, in whom MSNA did not increase. In summary, the increase in MSNA during static exercise in severe HF appears to be attributable to exaggerated central command or muscle mechanoreceptor control, not muscle metaboreceptor control.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".