Isometric handgrip training does not improve flow-mediated dilation in subjects with normal blood pressure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isometric HG (handgrip) training lowers resting arterial BP (blood pressure), yet the mechanisms are elusive. In the present study, we investigated improved systemic endothelial function as a mechanism of arterial BP modification following isometric HG training in normotensive individuals. This study employed a within-subject repeated measures design primarily to assess improvements in BA FMD (brachial artery flow-mediated dilation; an index of endothelium-dependent vasodilation), with the non-exercising limb acting as an internal control. Eleven subjects performed four 2-min unilateral isometric HG contractions at 30% of maximal effort, three times per week for 8 weeks. Pre-, mid- and post-training resting ABP and BA FMD (exercised arm and non-exercised arm) were measured via automated brachial oscillometry and ultrasound respectively. BA FMD (normalized to the peak shear rate experienced in response to the reactive hyperaemic stimulus) remained unchanged [exercised arm, 0.029+/-0.003 to 0.026+/-0.003 to 0.029+/-0.004%/s(-1) (pre- to mid- to post-training respectively); non-exercised arm, 0.023+/-0.003 to 0.023+/-0.003 to 0.024+/-0.003%/s(-1) (pre- to mid- to post-training respectively); P=0.22]. In conclusion, improved systemic endothelial function is unlikely to be responsible for lowering arterial BP in this population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it