Cardiovascular responses to incremental and sustained submaximal exercise in heart transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cardiovascular response to exercise in heart transplant recipients (HTR) has been compared with that of healthy individuals matched to the recipient age (RM controls). However, no study has compared HTR with donor age-matched (DM) controls. Moreover, the cardiovascular response to sustained submaximal exercise in HTR requires further evaluation. We therefore examined cardiovascular responses during incremental exercise and sustained (1 h) submaximal aerobic exercise in 9 clinically stable HTR [63 +/- 10 yr of age, 24.2 +/- 10.9 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) peak O(2) uptake (Vo(2peak))] and 11 healthy age-matched controls (60 +/- 11 yr of age and 36.3 +/- 10.7 ml.kg(-1) x min(-1) Vo(2peak) for 6 RM controls and 35 +/- 8 yr of age and 51.1 +/- 10.4 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) Vo(2peak) for 5 DM controls). Heart rate (HR) and left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes (2-dimensional echocardiography) indexed to body surface area [end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (EDVI and ESVI)], cardiac output (CI), ejection fraction (EF), systemic vascular resistance (SVRI), end-systolic elastance index, and arterial elastance index were determined. Although systolic function was maintained during incremental exercise, peak CI was significantly reduced (6.7 +/- 2.4 vs. 11.6 +/- 1.4 l x min(-1) x m(-2)), secondary to blunted HR, EDVI, and increased peak SVRI, in HTR compared with DM controls. The lower peak CI in HTR than in RM controls was due to blunted peak EDVI (54.1 +/- 13.2 vs. 68.6 +/- 5.7 ml/m(2)). During sustained submaximal exercise, HTR exhausted their preload reserve, a response for which changes in ESVI, HR, or EF did not fully compensate. Thus it appears that HTR are limited by impaired preload reserve, HR reserve, and vascular reserve during exercise conditions.
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".