Effects of Isometric Handgrip Protocol on Blood Pressure and Neurocardiac Modulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isometric handgrip (IHG) remains a well-studied cardiovascular and autonomic stimulus, however the effects of rhythmic IHG protocols remain largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effects of 4 IHG protocols on blood pressure (BP) and neurocardiac reactivity and recovery responses. 12 healthy older participants (70±5 yrs, ♀=4) each completed 4 bilateral 12-min protocols (sham, IHG1, IHG2, IHG3) on separate visits. IHG1, IHG2, and IHG3 consisted of 4×2-min, 8×1-min, and 16×30-s isometric contractions, respectively, each completed at 30% MVC, while sham consisted of 4×2-min contractions completed at 3% MVC. BP and neurocardiac modulation were assessed during and following each protocol. Systolic BP (SBP) reactivity was increased during IHG1 compared to IHG2 (p<0.05), IHG3 (p<0.05), and sham (p<0.01), although during recovery delta SBP was lower following IHG1 (p<0.01), IHG2 (p<0.01), and IHG3 (p<0.05), compared to sham. Sample entropy, a measure of nonlinear heart rate variability was reduced during IHG1 (p<0.01) and IHG2 (p<0.05), while increased following IHG1 (p<0.05) and IHG3 (p<0.05), compared to sham. In conclusion, recovery responses from rhythmic IHG appear independent of contraction and/or rest period frequency-duration relationships. Investigation of rhythmic IHG protocols warrants further examination.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".