Activation of the carotid chemoreflex secondary to muscle metaboreflex stimulation in men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has shown that the carotid chemoreceptor (CC) contributes to sympathetic control of cardiovascular function during exercise, despite no evidence of increased circulating CC stimuli, suggesting enhanced CC activity/sensitivity. As interactions between metaboreceptors and chemoreceptors have been previously observed, the purpose of this study was to isolate the metaboreflex while acutely stimulating or inhibiting the CC to determine whether the metaboreflex increased CC activity/sensitivity. Fourteen young healthy men (height: 177.0 ± 2.1 cm, weight: 85.8 ± 5.5 kg, age: 24.6 ± 1.1 yr) performed three trials of 40% maximal voluntary contraction handgrip for 2 min, followed by 3 min of postexercise circulatory occlusion (PECO) to stimulate the metaboreflex. In random order, subjects either breathed room air, hypoxia (target SPo2 = 85%), or hyperoxia (FiO2 = 1.0) during the PECO to modulate the chemoreflex. After these trials, a resting hypoxia trial was conducted without handgrip or PECO. Ventilation (Ve), heart rate (HR), blood pressure, and muscle sympathetic nervous activity (MSNA) data were continuously obtained. Relative to normoxic PECO, inhibition of the CC during hyperoxic PECO resulted in lower MSNA (P = 0.038) and HR (P = 0.021). Relative to normoxic PECO, stimulation of the CC during hypoxic PECO resulted in higher HR (P < 0.001) and Ve (P < 0.001). The ventilatory and MSNA responses to hypoxic PECO were not greater than the sum of the responses to hypoxia and PECO individually, indicating that the CC are not sensitized during metaboreflex activation. These results demonstrate that stimulation of the metaboreflex activates, but does not sensitize the CC, and help explain the enhanced CC activity with exercise.
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".