Resistance exercise training does not affect postexercise hypotension and wave reflection in women with fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of resistance exercise training (RET) on aortic wave reflection and hemodynamics during recovery from acute resistance exercise in women with fibromyalgia (FM) and healthy women (HW). Nine women with FM (aged 42 ± 5 years; mean ± SD) and 14 HW (aged 45 ± 5 years) completed testing at baseline and after 12 weeks of whole-body RET that consisted of 3 sets of 5 exercises. Heart rate (HR), digital blood pressure (BP, plethysmography), aortic BP, and wave reflection (radial tonometry) were assessed before and 20 min after acute leg resistance exercise. Aortic and digital diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were significantly decreased (p < 0.05) and aortic and digital pulse pressures (PP) were significantly increased (p < 0.05) after acute exercise before RET. Acute resistance exercise had no effect on HR, wave reflection (augmentation index and reflection time), digital, or aortic systolic BP. RET improved muscle strength without affecting acute DBP and PP responses. Acute resistance exercise produces postexercise diastolic hypotension without affecting systolic blood pressure, HR, and wave reflection responses in women with and without FM. RET does not alter resting and postexercise hemodynamics and aortic wave reflection in premenopausal women.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".