WISE 2005: responses of women to sublingual nitroglycerin before and after 56 days of 6° head-down bed rest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the hypothesis that cardiovascular effects of sublingual nitroglycerin (NG) would be exaggerated after 56 days of 6° head-down bed rest (HDBR) in women, and that an aerobic and resistive exercise countermeasure (EX, n = 8) would reduce the effect compared with HDBR without exercise (CON, n = 7). Middle cerebral artery maximal blood flow velocity (CBFV), cardiac stroke volume (SV), and superficial femoral artery blood flow (Doppler ultrasound) were recorded at baseline rest and for 5 min following 0.3 mg sublingual NG. Post-HDBR, NG caused greater increases in heart rate (HR) in CON compared with EX (+24.9 ± 7.7 and +18.8 ± 6.6 beats/min, respectively, P < 0.0001). The increase in HR combined with reductions in SV to maintain cardiac output. Systolic, mean, and pulse pressures were reduced 5-10 mmHg by NG, but total peripheral resistance was only slightly reduced at 3 min after NG. Reductions in CBFV of -12.5 ± 3.8 cm/s were seen after NG, but a reduction in the Doppler resistance index suggested dilation of the middle cerebral artery with no differences after HDBR. The femoral artery dilated with NG and blood flow was reduced ∼50% with the appearance of large negative waves suggesting a marked increase in downstream resistance, but there were no effects of HDBR. In general, responses of women to NG were not altered by HDBR; the greater increase in HR in CON but not EX was probably a consequence of cardiovascular deconditioning. These results contrast with the hypothesis and a previous investigation of men after HDBR by revealing no change in cardiovascular responses to exogenous nitric oxide.
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) | 0.001 | 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".