Interval exercise increases angiogenic cell function in postmenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Exercise can help to negate the increased cardiovascular disease risk observed in women after the menopausal transition. This study sought to determine whether interval or continuous exercise has differential effects on endothelial function and circulating angiogenic cell (CAC) number and function in postmenopausal women. METHODS: Fifteen healthy postmenopausal women completed a 30 min acute moderate-intensity continuous (CON) and interval exercise (MOD-INT) session on a cycle ergometer on separate days. Nine participants completed a further single 30 min acute heavy-intensity interval (HEAVY-INT) exercise session. Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) was assessed pre-exercise and 15 min post-exercise session. CAC number and colony-forming capacity in vitro were assessed post exercise and compared with resting levels. RESULTS: FMD and CAC number did not change post exercise regardless of exercise type (p>0.05). However, the number (mean±SD) of colony-forming units (CFUs) increased from visit 1 (12±10 CFUs/well) to post MOD-INT (32±30 CFUs/well) and post HEAVY-INT (38±23 CFUs/well) but not post CON (13±14 CFUs/well). CONCLUSION: A single session of interval exercise is more effective than a continuous exercise session for increasing the intercellular communication of CACs, regardless of exercise intensity. The enhanced ability of CACs to form colonies may reflect an increased number and/or function of angiogenic T-cells. The repeated exertions to higher work rates during interval exercise may explain this response. Repeated exercise sessions might be required to improve FMD in postmenopausal women.
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".