CHEMOREFLEX FROM LEG ELEVATES MUSCLE BLOOD FLOW AND OXYGEN UPTAKE AT ONSET OF FOREARM EXERCISE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that increases in forearm blood flow (FBF) during the adaptive phase at the onset of moderate exercise would be associated with an increase in muscle oxygen uptake (VO2mus). 16 subjects completed forearm exercise in control (Con) and leg occlusion (Occ) conditions. Occ was preceded by calf muscle exercise that caused mean arterial pressure to increase by 22-mmHg by activation of the muscle chemoreflex. Subjects divided into responders (n = 9) who increased FBF during Occ compared to Con and non-responders who did not. At 1-min of exercise FBF for responders was 166 ± 10 ml/min in Occ vs. 138 ± 11 ml/min in Con. The responders also had significantly higher VO2mus during the adaptive phase of the Occ tests (e.g. at 1-min, 23.1 ± 1.9 ml/min) than during Con (18.5 ± 42.0 ml/min). There was no difference in the baseline or steady state VO2mus between Occ and Con in either responders or non-responders. These data indicate for the human forearm that supplying more blood flow at the onset of exercise allows a more rapid increase in oxidative phosphorylation supporting our hypothesis that, at least for this type of exercise, O2 supply was rate limiting. Supported by NSERC Canada and Franche Comte Regional Council.
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) | 0.002 | 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".