Carotid chemoreceptor modulation of muscle blood flow during leg‐extension exercise in healthy humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously, we have shown that transient carotid chemoreceptor (CC) inhibition causes vasodilation in limb muscle in exercising dogs, and a reduction in muscle sympathetic nerve activity during handgrip exercise in humans. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if CC inhibition causes an increase in exercising muscle blood flow during leg‐extension exercise in humans. Healthy subjects (N = 5) breathed hyperoxic gas (FIO 2 = 1.0) for 2 minutes at rest and during submaximal one‐legged knee‐extension exercise. Femoral arterial blood flow data was obtained from continuous Doppler recordings at rest and during exercise. Leg‐extension exercise increased heart rate (64 vs. 87 beats · min −1 ), mean blood pressure (84 vs. 96 mmHg), muscle blood flow (0.37 vs. 1.60 L · min −1 ) and muscle conductance (4.75 vs. 16.82 units). Transient hyperoxia had no effect on muscle blood flow or conductance at rest. In contrast, during exercise both muscle blood flow and muscle conductance were increased with hyperoxia. The mean peak increase in muscle blood flow and conductance was 30 +/− 6% and 30 +/− 8%, respectively, above steady state normoxic values. Blood pressure was unchanged with hyperoxia at rest or during exercise. These preliminary findings suggest that the CC plays a role in muscle blood flow control during exercise in healthy humans.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".