Positional differences in reactive hyperemia provide insight into initial phase of exercise hyperemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have reported a greater blood flow response to muscle contractions when the limb is below the heart compared with above the heart, and these results have been interpreted as evidence for a skeletal muscle pump contribution to exercise hyperemia. If limb position affects the blood flow response to other vascular challenges such as reactive hyperemia, this interpretation may not be correct. We hypothesized that the magnitude of reactive hyperemia would be greater with the limb below the heart. Brachial artery blood flow (Doppler ultrasound) and blood pressure (finger-cuff plethysmography) were measured in 10 healthy volunteers. Subjects lay supine with one arm supported in two different positions: above or below the heart. Reactive hyperemia was produced by occlusion of arterial inflow for varying durations: 0.5 min, 1 min, 2 min, or 5 min in randomized order. Peak increases in blood flow were 77 ± 11, 178 ± 24, 291 ± 25, and 398 ± 33 ml/min above the heart and 96 ± 19, 279 ± 62, 550 ± 60, and 711 ± 69 ml/min below the heart (P < 0.05). Thus a standard stimulus (vascular occlusion) elicited different responses depending on limb position. To determine whether these differences were due to mechanisms intrinsic to the arterial wall, a second set of experiments was performed in which acute intraluminal pressure reduction for 0.5 min, 1 min, 2 min, or 5 min was performed in isolated rat soleus feed arteries (n = 12). The magnitude of dilation upon pressure restoration was greater when acute pressure reduction occurred from 85 mmHg (mimicking pressure in the arm below the heart; 28.3 ± 7.9, 37.5 ± 5.9, 55.1 ± 9.9, and 68.9 ± 8.6% dilation) than from 48 mmHg (mimicking pressure in the arm above the heart; 20.8 ± 4.8, 22.6 ± 4.4, 31.2 ± 5.8, and 49.2 ± 7.1% dilation). These data support the hypothesis that arm position differences in reactive hyperemia are at least partially mediated by mechanisms intrinsic to the arterial wall. Overall, these results suggest the need to reevaluate studies employing positional changes to examine muscle pump influences on exercise hyperemia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".