Central hemodynamic responses during acute high-intensity interval exercise and moderate continuous exercise in patients with heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the acute hemodynamic responses during high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) session compared with moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) session in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF). Thirteen patients with HFREF (age, 59 ± 6 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 27% ± 6%; New York Heart Association class I to III) were randomly assigned to a single session of HIIE (2 × 8 min) corresponding to 30 s at 100% of peak power output (PPO) and 30 s passive recovery intervals or to a MICE (22 min) at 60% of PPO. Gas exchange and central hemodynamic parameters (cardiac bioimpedance) were measured continuously during exercise. Oxygen uptake, stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), and arterio-venous difference (C(a-v)O(2)) were compared. Mean oxygen uptake and ventilation were lower during HIIE vs. MICE. CO, SV, and C(a-v)O(2)) were not different between MICE and HIIE. Optimized HIIE was well tolerated (similar perceived exertion) and no significant ventricular arrhythmias and (or) abnormal blood pressure responses occurred during HIEE session. Compared with MICE, optimized HIIE elicited similar central hemodynamic and C(a-v)O(2) responses in HFREF patients with lower oxygen uptake and ventilation. HIIE may be an efficient exercise training modality in patients with HFREF.
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) | 0.001 | 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".