Effects of body weight-supported treadmill training on heart rate variability and blood pressure variability in individuals with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with spinal cord injury are prone to cardiovascular dysfunction and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Body weight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT) may enhance ambulation in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury; however, its effects on cardiovascular regulation have not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of 6-mo of BWSTT on the autonomic regulation of heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) in individuals with incomplete tetraplegia. Eight individuals [age 27.6 yr (SD 5.2)] with spinal cord injury [C4-C5; American Spinal Injury Association B-C; 9.6 yr (SD 7.5) postinjury] participated. Ten-minute HR and finger arterial pressure (Finapres) recordings were collected during 1) supine rest and 2) an orthostatic stress (60 degrees head-up tilt) before and after 6 mo of BWSTT. Frequency domain measures of HR variability [low-frequency (LF) power, high-frequency (HF) power, and LF-to-HF ratio] and BP variability (systolic and diastolic LF power) were used as clinically valuable indexes of neurocardiac and neurovascular control, respectively. There was a significant reduction in HR [61.9 (SD 6.9) vs. 55.7 beats/min (SD 7.7); P=0.05] and LF-to-HF ratio [1.23 (SD 0.47) vs. 0.99 (SD 0.40); P < 0.05] after BWSTT. There was a significant reduction in LF systolic BP [183.1 (SD 46.8) vs. 158.4 mmHg2 (SD 45.2); P < 0.01] but no change in BP. There were no significant effects of training on HR variability or BP variability during 60 degrees head-up tilt. In conclusion, individuals with incomplete tetraplegia retain the ability to make positive changes in cardiovascular autonomic regulation with BWSTT without worsening orthostatic intolerance.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".