The Role of Autonomic Function on Sport Performance in Athletes With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Devastating paralysis, autonomic dysfunction, and abnormal cardiovascular control present significant hemodynamic challenges to individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), especially during exercise. In general, resting arterial pressure after SCI is lower than with able-bodied individuals and is commonly associated with persistent orthostatic intolerance along with transient episodes of life-threatening hypertension, known as "autonomic dysreflexia." During exercise, the loss of central and reflexive cardiovascular control attenuates maximal heart rate and impairs blood pressure regulation and blood redistribution, which ultimately reduces venous return, stroke volume, and cardiac output. Thermoregulation also is severely compromised in high-lesion SCI, a problem that is compounded when competing in hot and humid conditions. There is some evidence that enhancing venous return via lower body positive pressure or abdominal binding improves exercise performance, as do cooling strategies. Athletes with SCI also have been documented to self-induce autonomic dysreflexia before competition with a view of increasing blood pressure and improving their performance, a technique known as "boosting." For health safety reasons, boosting is officially banned by the International Paralympics Committee. This article addresses the complex issue of how the autonomic nervous system affects sports performance in athletes with SCI, with a specific focus on the potential debilitating effects of deranged cardiovascular control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".