Microvascular Dilator Function in Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite the growing research interest in vascular adaptations to exercise training over the last few decades, it remains unclear whether microvascular function in healthy subjects can be further improved by regular training. Herein, we sought to systematically review the literature and determine whether microvascular dilator function is greater in athletes compared to age-matched healthy untrained subjects. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science since their inceptions until October 2013 for articles evaluating indices of primarily microvascular endothelium-dependent or endothelium-independent dilation (MVEDD and MVEID, respectively) in athletes. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the standardized mean difference (SMD) in MVEDD and MVEID between athletes and age-matched controls. Subgroup analyses were used to study potential moderating factors. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were selected after systematic review, comprising 521 athletes (506 endurance-trained and 15 endurance- and strength-trained) and 496 age-matched control subjects. After data pooling, athletes presented higher MVEDD (31 studies; SMD, 0.47; P < 0.00001) and MVEID (14 studies; SMD, 0.51; P < 0.00001) compared with the control subjects. Similar results were observed in young (younger than 40 yr) and master (older than 55 yr) athletes when analyzed separately. CONCLUSION: Both young and master athletes present enhanced microvascular function compared with age-matched untrained but otherwise healthy subjects. These data provide evidence of a positive association between exercise training and microvascular function in the absence of known underlying cardiovascular disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".