Temporal Changes In Cardiac Output During Arm Cycle Versus Hybrid Exercise In Persons With Spinal Cord Injury And Able-bodied Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid exercise devices allow the upper limbs to passively move the lower limbs. It has been hypothesized that this form of exercise may elicit greater cardiac output (Q) during activity than traditional arm ergometry. Lesion level and severity of spinal cord injury (SCI) may also affect the temporal changes in Q during exercise. It is generally believed that tetraplegics (i.e., higher lesion levels) have blunted cardiorespiratory responses to exercise in comparison to paraplegics. However, there is a paucity of information that exists regarding the effects of hybrid exercise on the cardiovascular response to exercise in tetraplegics and paraplegics. PURPOSE: To compare the temporal changes in Q during arm cycle versus hybrid exercise in tetraplegics, paraplegics, and able-bodied individuals. METHODS: Changes in Q were measured (acetylene rebreathing) during incremental arm cycle and hybrid exercise in 12 participants (3 persons with tetraplegia (C4-C7), 3 persons with paraplegia (T4-T6), and 6 able-bodied persons). Participants were matched according to age and gender. RESULTS: Hybrid exercise resulted in significantly greater changes in Q throughout incremental exercise in comparison to arm ergometry in both able-bodied individuals and persons with SCI. The average peak Q (across groups) was 12.7 + 4.0 L/min for hybrid exercise, and 10.1 + 2.7 L/min for arm ergrometry, respectively (P < 0.05). Lesion level affected the Q response to exercise. Persons with paraplegia had significantly higher Q throughout incremental exercise in comparison to persons with tetraplegia (11.5 + 3.1 vs. 8.0+2.2 L/min, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings support the implementation of hybrid exercise training in the exercise training and rehabilitation of persons with SCI, and highlight the importance of and need to consider lesion level when designing and prescribing exercise interventions for individuals with SCI. Funding agencies: CFI, NSERC, MSFHR, CIHR, and Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation.
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".