Echo-Doppler Assessment of Hemodynamics and Cardiac Responses to Exercise in Adolescent Females with Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activity and exercise programs are currently being prescribed for patients with eating disorders (ED). Cardiac size and function are down-regulated in ED, however, the cardiac responses to exercise are not well known. PURPOSE: To determine the cardiac and hemodynamic responses to exercise in ED and compare their results with those of healthy controls (CON). METHODS: Thirty-six female patients with ED were exercised on a semi-recumbent cycle ergometer using a step protocol of 20 watt increments every 3 minutes until volitional fatigue. Echo-Doppler measurements were taken at rest, during each stage of exercise, immediate- and 3 minutes post-exercise. Data was compared to 12 CON. RESULTS: ED were older (16.0 vs 11.1 yr; p<0.01) although BMI was similar (18.3 Vs 18.4 kg/m2). The resting left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDI) was smaller in ED (3.0 vs 3.3 cm/m2; p<0.02). Both resting (99 vs 114 mmHg; p<0.001) and peak exercise systolic (149 vs 170 mmHg; p<0.001) blood pressures were lower in ED. Resting and peak exercise diastolic pressures were also significantly lower. Resting (32 vs 43 mL/m2; p<0.001) and peak exercise (36 vs 49 mL/m2; p<0.001) stroke volume (SVI) were lower in ED; resting (2.41 vs 3.51 L/min/m2; p<0.001) and peak exercise (5.62 vs 9.10 L/min/m2; p<0.001) cardiac output (CI) were lower in ED; although total work was similar (1285 vs 1237 J/kg). Resting load-dependent indicesof contractility (fractional shortening) [SF], mean velocity of circumferential fiber shortening [MVCFc], and peak systolic wall stress [φps] were similar. Peak exercise SF (49 vs 53%; p<0.001), MVCFc (1.53 vs 1.69 circ/s; p<0.03) were lower in ED, while ?ps was higher (57 vs 48 gm/cm2; p<0.08). The load-independent MVCFc/φps relationship showed a blunted response in ED. CONCLUSIONS: ED were able to exercise safely. They were able to increase their hemodynamics and cardiac function in a normal pattern, although their responses were blunted compared to CON. Despite this, their total work was similar. We speculate that this may be due to greater efficiency in ED and/or the age difference between groups.
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 | 0.000 |
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".