Effect of Chronic Lower Limb Heating on Indices of Vascular Function and Functional Capacity in Aged Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In aged adults, acute lower limb heating increases leg blood flow, vascular shear stress, and improves macro- and microvascular dilator function. However, the effect of chronic lower limb heating on indices of vascular function and functional capacity remains unclear. PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that chronic lower limb heating improves macro- and microvascular dilator function and functional capacity in aged adults. METHODS: Five healthy aged adults (4 females; age 66 ± 4 years; height 163 ± 4 cm; weight 68 ± 7 kg; mean ± SD) were exposed to 8 weeks of chronic lower limb heating. Subjects immersed their lower limbs ~33 cm into a heated (~ 42°C) and circulated water bath 4 days per week, for 45 min per session. Prior to and after the chronic limb heating regimen, duplex ultrasonography was used to assess macro- (flow-mediated dilation) and microvascular (3 min reactive hyperemia area under the curve) dilator function in the superficial femoral artery following 5 min of arterial occlusion. Functional capacity was assessed via a 6 min walk test. Rating of perceived exertion (Borg scale) was also recorded immediately following the walk test. RESULTS: Chronic lower limb heating improved macrovascular dilator function (pre 1.9 ± 0.2% vs. post 3.2 ± 0.2%; P = 0.01), while microvascular dilator function tended to increase (pre 468 ± 89 ml vs. post 562 ± 131 ml; P = 0.09). Likewise, distance covered during the 6 min walk test tended to increase following chronic heating (pre 629 ± 36 m vs. post 665 ± 32 m; P = 0.06), whereas rating of perceived exertion did not differ (pre 12 ± 1 vs. post 13 ± 1; P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, chronic lower limb heating improves macrovascular dilator function in aged adults, while perhaps improving microvascular dilator function and functional capacity, despite a similar perceived effort. These data suggest that chronic lower limb heating may be an effective therapy to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in aged adults by improving vascular health and functional capacity. Funded by National Institutes of Health (GM-068865 & GM-117693).
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".