What Induces the Warm-Up Ischemia/Angina Phenomenon: Exercise or Myocardial Ischemia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relation of the warm-up ischemia phenomenon to the presence and intensity of initial myocardial ischemia is unclear. We sought to determine whether the warm-up ischemia phenomenon requires initial myocardial ischemia or can be induced by exercise without ischemia and whether there is a relation between the intensity of initial ischemia and the attenuation of ischemia on reexercise. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twelve subjects with exertional myocardial ischemia performed 2 exercise ECG tests (1 and 2) at a +/-10-minute interval on 3 occasions (A, B, C) 1 month apart. A1 and A2 were symptom-limited. B1 was kept as long as A1, but its intensity was held under the ischemic threshold (heart ratexsystolic pressure at 1-mm ST depression [STD]) noted at A1. B2 was symptom-limited. C1 was also kept as long as A1 but with an intensity adjusted to maintain one-half maximum STD of A1. C2 was symptom-limited. Exercise duration of A2, B2, and C2 increased similarly compared with A1 (P=0.009). However, the ischemic threshold (x10-3) increased at A2 (23.5+/-6.0) compared with A1 (20.3+/-4.8; P<0.0001) but not at B2 (19.8+/-5.0) or C2 (21.5+/-5.8). Similarly, maximum STD adjusted to the highest heart rate-systolic pressure product common to A1, A2, B2, and C2 decreased at A2 (1.4+/-0.7 mm) compared with A1 (2.5+/-0.9 mm; P<0.0001) but not at B2 (2.7+/-0.9 mm) or C2 (2.3+/-0.9 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Exercises under the ischemic threshold and of intermediate ischemic intensity increase short-term exercise capacity, but myocardial ischemia of more than moderate intensity is needed to induce the warm-up ischemia phenomenon.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".