Left ventricular function during arm exercise: influence of leg cycling and lower body positive pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to characterize left ventricular (LV) diastolic filling and systolic performance during graded arm exercise and to examine the effects of lower body positive pressure (LBPP) or concomitant leg exercise as means to enhance LV preload in aerobically trained individuals. Subjects were eight men with a mean age (+/-SE) of 26.8 +/- 1.2 yr. Peak exercise testing was first performed for both legs [maximal oxygen uptake (Vo(2)) = 4.21 +/- 0.19 l/min] and arms (2.56 +/- 0.16 l/min). On a separate occasion, LV filling and ejection parameters were acquired using non-imaging scintography using in vivo red blood cell labeling with technetium 99(m) first during leg exercise performed in succession for 2 min at increasing grades to peak effort. Graded arm exercise (at 30, 60, 80, and 100% peak Vo(2)) was performed during three randomly assigned conditions: control (no intervention), with concurrent leg cycling (at a constant 15% leg maximal Vo(2)) or with 60 mmHg of LBPP using an Anti G suit. Peak leg exercise LV ejection fraction was higher than arm exercise (60.9 +/- 1.7% vs. 55.9 +/- 2.7%; P < 0.05) as was peak LV end-diastolic volume was reported as % of resting value (110.3 +/- 4.4% vs. 97 +/- 3.7%; P < 0.05) and peak filling rate (end-diastolic volume/s; 6.4 +/- 0.28% vs. 5.2 +/- 0.25%). Concomitant use of either low-intensity leg exercise or LBPP during arm exercise failed to significantly increase LV filling or ejection parameters. These observations suggest that perturbations in preload fail to overcome the inherent hemodynamic conditions present during arm exercise that attenuate LV performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".