Impaired myocardial function does not explain reduced left ventricular filling and stroke volume at rest or during exercise at high altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impaired myocardial systolic contraction and diastolic relaxation have been suggested as possible mechanisms contributing to the decreased stroke volume (SV) observed at high altitude (HA). To determine whether intrinsic myocardial performance is a limiting factor in the generation of SV at HA, we assessed left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic mechanics and volumes in 10 healthy participants (aged 32 ± 7; mean ± SD) at rest and during exercise at sea level (SL; 344 m) and after 10 days at 5,050 m. In contrast to SL, LV end-diastolic volume was ∼19% lower at rest (P = 0.004) and did not increase during exercise despite a greater untwisting velocity. Furthermore, resting SV was lower at HA (∼17%; 60 ± 10 vs. 70 ± 8 ml) despite higher LV twist (43%), apical rotation (115%), and circumferential strain (17%). With exercise at HA, the increase in SV was limited (12 vs. 22 ml at SL), and LV apical rotation failed to augment. For the first time, we have demonstrated that EDV does not increase upon exercise at high altitude despite enhanced in vivo diastolic relaxation. The increase in LV mechanics at rest may represent a mechanism by which SV is defended in the presence of a reduced EDV. However, likely because of the higher LV mechanics at rest, no further increase was observed up to 50% peak power. Consequently, although hypoxia does not suppress systolic function per se, the capacity to increase SV through greater deformation during submaximal exercise at HA is restricted.
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".