Effect of muscle metaboreflex activation on central hemodynamics and cardiac function in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine how the mode of muscle metaboreflex activation influences the central hemodynamic response and cardiac inotropic and lusotropic function in healthy humans. Ten healthy males performed (i) isometric handgrip (IHG) with and without post-exercise ischemia (PEI) to examine the influence of isolated muscle metaboreflex activation and (ii) rhythmic handgrip (RHG) with and without ischemia to examine the influence of enhanced muscle metaboreflex activation. Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) were continuously monitored. Stroke volume (SV, Doppler echocardiography) was measured, cardiac output (CO = HR × SV) and total peripheral resistance (TPR = mean BP/CO) calculated, and indices of left ventricular systolic and diastolic function were obtained (tissue Doppler imaging). During isolated muscle metaboreflex activation with PEI following IHG, mean BP (+23 ± 3 mm Hg) and TPR were elevated from baseline (p < 0.05), whereas HR, SV, and CO were unchanged. Enhanced muscle metaboreceptor activation during ischemic RHG augmented the increase in mean BP, CO, and HR (p < 0.05 ischemic vs. free-flow RHG), whereas SV and TPR were unchanged from baseline. Neither isolated (PEI) nor enhanced muscle metaboreflex activation altered left ventricular systolic function (systolic myocardial velocity), but left atrial systolic function (late diastolic myocardial velocity) was enhanced. These findings indicate that the mode of muscle metaboreceptor activation (during vs. post handgrip) determines whether the resultant pressor response is flow (CO) or vasoconstriction (TPR) mediated, and that although left ventricular systolic function is unchanged, enhanced left atrial systolic function likely aids the preservation of SV during muscle metaboreflex engagement.
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) | 0.001 | 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".