Can intradermal administration of angiotensin II influence human heat loss responses during whole body heat stress?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unclear if angiotensin II, which can increase the production of reactive oxygen species (oxidative stress), modulates heat loss responses of cutaneous blood flow and sweating. We tested the hypothesis that angiotensin II-induced increases in oxidative stress impair cutaneous perfusion and sweating during rest and exercise in the heat. Eleven young (24 ± 4 yr) healthy adults performed two 30-min cycling bouts at a fixed rate of metabolic heat production (400 W) in the heat (35°C). The first and second exercises were followed by a 20- and 40-min recovery. Four microdialysis fibers were placed in the forearm skin for continuous administration of either: 1) lactated Ringer (control), 2) 10 μM angiotensin II, 3) 10 mM ascorbate (an antioxidant), or 4) a combination of 10 μM angiotensin II + 10 mM ascorbate. Cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC; laser-Doppler perfusion units/mean arterial pressure) and sweating (ventilated capsule) were evaluated at each skin site. Compared with control, angiotensin II reduced both CVC and sweating at baseline resting and during each recovery in the heat (all P < 0.05). However, during both exercise bouts, there were no differences in CVC or sweating between the treatment sites (all P > 0.05). When ascorbate was coinfused with angiotensin II, the effect of angiotensin II on sweating was abolished (all P > 0.05); however, its effect on CVC at baseline resting and during each recovery remained intact (all P < 0.05). We show angiotensin II impairs cutaneous perfusion independent of oxidative stress, while it impairs sweating through increasing oxidative stress during exposure to an ambient heat stress before and following 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".