Lymphoscintigraphy to Evaluate the Effect of High versus Low Intensity Upper Body Dynamic Exercise on Lymphatic Function in Healthy Females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the acute effects of exercise on the lymphatic system. Thus, the purpose was to determine the effect of low versus high intensity upper body exercise on lymphatic function in healthy females. METHODS AND RESULTS: On separate days, eight females performed either HI: 12 repeated sets of arm cranking for 2.5 min at 0.6 W.kg-1, followed by 2.5 min of rest; or LO: 12 repeated sets of arm cranking for 2.5 min at 0.3 W.kg-1, followed by 2.5 min of rest. One min spot views were taken with a gamma-radiation camera immediately after injection of 99mTc-antimony colloid and every 10 min thereafter to measure the clearance rate (CR) from the first and fourth finger-web of each hand. Radiopharmaceutical uptake in the axillary regions (AX) at 65 min postinjection was also measured. Clearance from the injection sites was linear and expressed as a slope (% administered activity.min-1). HI resulted in significantly greater CR (-0.24%.min-1+/-0.06) than LO (-0.19%.min-1+/-0.05; p=0.003). A similar trend was seen in AX (HI: 6.3%+/-1.6, LO: 4.8%+/-1.1, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that an arm cranking protocol of higher intensity is more effective in promoting lymphatic clearance from the hand. Further, the high intensity protocol may be useful in the functional evaluation of the lymphatic system in breast cancer survivors and warrants further investigation.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".