Rapid Vasodilation is Preserved in Forearm Exercise Over Repeated Increases/Decreases in Contraction Intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1550 We have previously demonstrated a vasodilatory contribution to the immediate increase in blood flow in transition from mild to moderate forearm contraction intensity. It is not known whether this rapid response is preserved over repeated increases/decreases in contraction intensity. PURPOSE: To determine whether rapid vasodilation is 1) preserved over repeated step increases/decreases in forearm contraction intensity, 2) affected by the frequency of these step increases/decreases. METHODS: Subjects performed two trials separated by 15 minutes of rest, each beginning at steady state moderate forearm exercise using a 1s: 2s contraction/relaxation duty cycle. Trial 1: 10 repeats of 2 contractions at moderate and heavy contraction intensity (high frequency (HF) increase/decrease). Trial 2: 10 repeats of 7 contractions (low frequency LF) at moderate and heavy contraction intensity. Mean blood velocity (MBV) was used to assess forearm blood flow (FBF), since diameter did not change with the increases/decreases in contraction intensity. RESULTS: MBV at moderate contraction intensity immediately prior to each step increase was similar in HF vs. LF (P = 0.881) and gradually increased to become consistent across steps after 3 step increases/decreases (P = 0.722). The frequency of the increase/decrease (HF vs. LF) had no effect on the MBV increase (P = 0.806). The first MBV change (6.75cm/s) vs. the second (4.03 cm/s) vs. the last (6.35 cm/s) were not different (P = 0.157) indicating preservation of vasodilation magnitude over time. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of rapid vasodilation is preserved over repeated step increases/decreases in contraction intensity. Furthermore, this rapid vasodilation is not affected by the frequency of step increases/decreases examined in this study. Supported by NSERC; Canadian Foundation for Innovation; Ontario Innovation Trust.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".