Effects of acute exercise on circulating endothelial and progenitor cells in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and healthy controls: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) may be at risk of poor cardiovascular health. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) and circulating endothelial cells (CECs) are markers of cardiovascular repair and damage, respectively, and respond to exercise. The objectives of this study were to compare resting levels of EPCs and CECs in JIA and controls, and to assess the effects of distinct types of exercise on EPCs and CECs in JIA and controls. METHODS: Seven youth with JIA and six controls completed 3 visits. First, aerobic fitness was assessed. Participants then performed either moderate intensity, continuous exercise (MICE) or high intensity, intermittent exercise (HIIE) on separate days. Blood samples were collected at the beginning (REST), mid-point (MID) and end of exercise (POST) for determination of EPCs (CD31(+)CD34(bright)CD45(dim)CD133(+)) and CECs (CD31(bright)CD34(+)CD45(-)CD133(-)) by flow cytometry. Between group differences in EPCs and CECs were examined using two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's HSD post hoc, where appropriate. Statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Both EPCs and CECs were similar between groups at REST (p = 0.18-0.94). During MICE, EPCs remained unchanged in JIA (p = 0.95) but increased significantly at POST in controls (REST: 0.91 ± 0.55 × 10(6) cells/L vs. POST: 1.53 ± 0.36 × 10(6) cells/L, p = 0.04). Compared with controls, lower levels of EPCs were observed in JIA at MID (0.48 ± 0.50 × 10(6) cells/L vs. 1.10 ± 0.39 × 10(6) cells/L, p = 0.01) and POST (0.38 ± 0.34 × 10(6) cells/L vs. 1.53 ± 0.36 × 10(6) cells/L, p < 0.001) during MICE. No changes were detected in CECs with MICE in JIA and controls (p = 0.69). Neither EPCs nor CECs were modified with HIIE (p = 0.28-0.69). CONCLUSION: Youth with JIA demonstrated a blunted EPC response to MICE when compared with controls. Future work should examine factors that may increase or normalize EPC mobilization in JIA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".