WISE 2005: stroke volume changes contribute to the pressor response during ischemic handgrip exercise in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of the pressor response to small muscle mass (e.g., forearm) exercise and during metaboreflex activation may include elevations in cardiac output (Q) or total peripheral resistance (TPR). Increases in Q must be supported by reductions in visceral venous volume to sustain venous return as heart rate (HR) increases. Therefore, this study tested the hypothesis that increases in Q, supported by reductions in splanchnic volume (portal vein constriction), explain the pressor response during handgrip exercise and metaboreflex activation. Seventeen healthy women performed 2 min of static ischemic handgrip exercise and 2 min of postexercise circulatory occlusion (PECO) while HR, stroke volume and superficial femoral artery flow (Doppler), blood pressure (Finometer), portal vein diameter (ultrasound imaging), and muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA; microneurography) were measured followed by the calculation of Q, TPR, and leg vascular resistance (LVR). Compared with baseline, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (P < 0.001) and Q (P < 0.001) both increased in each minute of exercise accompanied by a approximately 5% reduction in portal vein diameter (P < 0.05). MAP remained elevated during PECO, whereas Q decreased below exercise levels. MSNA was elevated above baseline during the second minute of exercise and through the PECO period (P < 0.05). Neither TPR nor LVR was changed from baseline during exercise and PECO. The data indicate that the majority of the blood pressure response to isometric handgrip exercise in women was due to mobilization of central blood volume and elevated stroke volume and Q rather than elevations in TVR or LVR resistance.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".