Augmentation of the exercise pressor reflex in prehypertension: roles of the muscle metaboreflex and mechanoreflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the hemodynamic mechanisms underlying the exaggerated blood pressure response to muscle contraction in prehypertensive humans and the potential role of skeletal muscle metabo- and mechanoreceptors in this response. To accomplish this, changes in peak mean arterial blood pressure (ΔMAP), cardiac output, and total peripheral resistance (ΔTPR) were compared between prehypertensive (n = 23) and normotensive (n = 19) male subjects during 2 min of static contraction (at 50% of maximal tension), 2 min of postexercise muscle ischemia (metaboreflex), and 1 min of passive dorsiflexion of the foot (tendon stretch, mechanoreceptor reflex). These variables were assessed before and during the interventions. Percentage increases from baseline in MAP and TPR in response to the exercise pressor reflex were augmented in the prehypertensives, compared with the normotensives (44% ± 5% vs. 33% ± 4% and 34% ± 15% vs. 2% ± 8%, respectively) (p < 0.05). Metaboreflex-induced increases in MAP and TPR were also augmented in the prehypertensives (28% ± 5% vs. 14% ± 4% and 36% ± 12% vs. 14% ± 9%, respectively) (p < 0.05). In response to the mechanoreflex, no differences in the percentage increase in MAP or TPR were seen between groups. The results indicate that the reflex pressor response to static contraction is augmented in prehypertension and suggest that this phenomenon is due, at least in part, to enhanced activation of metaboreceptors.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".