The Separate and Integrated Influence of Metabo- and Baroreflex Activity on Heat Loss Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current knowledge indicates that nonthermal muscle metaboreflex activity plays a critical role in the modulation of skin vasodilation and sweating. However, the mechanisms of control have primarily been studied during isometric handgrip exercise in which muscle metaboreceptor activation is induced by a brief post-exercise ischemia of the upper limb. While the reflex increase in mean arterial pressure associated with this period of ischemia is consistent with the activation of muscle metaboreceptors, the change in baroreflex activity may in itself modulate the response. Thus, we sought to understand how these nonthermal stimuli interact in modulating the control of skin perfusion and sweating under conditions of elevated hyperthermia. Furthermore, we examined the mechanisms responsible for the maintenance of arterial blood pressure under varying levels of heat stress during isometric handgrip exercise. Our study findings indicate that the parallel activation of muscle metaboreceptors and baroreceptors during post-exercise ischemia causes divergent influences on the control of skin blood flow and sweating; and these nonthermal stimuli are dependent on the level of hyperthermia. Moreover, we report that heat stress reduces the increase in arterial blood pressure during isometric handgrip exercise and this attenuation is attributed to a blunted increase in peripheral resistance, since cardiac output increased to similar levels for all heat stress conditions. These results provide important insight and understanding into the role of muscle metabo- and baroreflex activity on the control of skin blood flow and sweating; along with further knowledge into the cardiovascular mechanisms responsible for the regulation of arterial blood pressure during hyperthermia.
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) | 0.002 | 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".