Neuromechanical Features of the Cardiac Baroreflex After Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A single bout of exercise is associated with postexercise hypotension, transient decreases in autonomic function, and changes in baroreflex sensitivity. The baroreflex is less sensitive to falling blood pressure than to rising blood pressure; we characterized the cardiac baroreflex in terms of hysteresis and its mechanical and neural components. We hypothesized that hysteresis would be exacerbated postexercise because of a greater relative decrease in falling blood pressure. In 10 healthy young humans (5 men), we used bolus injections of sodium nitroprusside and phenylephrine hydrochloride to drive transient decreases and increases in blood pressure, respectively, to quantify cardiac baroreflex sensitivity to falling and rising blood pressure. This was completed before and at 10, 30, and 60 minutes after 40 minutes of cycling at 60% estimated maximal oxygen consumption. Analyses of beat-to-beat blood pressure, R-R intervals and heart rate, and carotid artery diameter were used to determine the integrated cardiac baroreflex response; this was further quantified into a mechanical component (systolic blood pressure versus carotid diameter) and a neural component (carotid diameter versus R-R interval). There were 2 principle findings: after aerobic exercise baroreflex sensitivity is reduced and hysteresis manifests, and the reduction in sensitivity to falling blood pressure is mediated by decreased mechanical and neural gains, whereas the decreased baroreflex sensitivity to rising blood pressure is mediated by a reduced mechanical gain only. We suggest that impaired neural transduction of the cardiac baroreflex, and its influence on hysteresis, plays an important role in transient autonomic dysfunction after 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".