MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735811052 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00046.2017

A comparison of passive hindlimb cycling and active upper-limb exercise provides new insights into systolic dysfunction after spinal cord injury

2017· article· en· W2735811052 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn M. DeVeau, Kathryn A. Harman, Jordan W. Squair, Andrei V. Krassioukov, David S.K. Magnuson, Christopher R. West

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration On Repair Discoveries
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryCardiologyInternal medicineDobutamineAnesthesiaStroke volumeSpinal cordHeart rateHemodynamicsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active upper-limb and passive lower-limb exercise are two interventions used in the spinal cord injury (SCI) population. Although the global cardiac responses have been previously studied, it is unclear how either exercise influences contractile cardiac function. Here, the cardiac contractile and volumetric responses to upper-limb (swim) and passive lower-limb exercise were investigated in rodents with a severe high-thoracic SCI. Animals were divided into control (CON), SCI no exercise (NO-EX), SCI passive hindlimb cycling (PHLC), or SCI swim (SWIM) groups. Severe contusion SCI was administered at the T2 level. PHLC and SWIM interventions began on day 8 postinjury and lasted 25 days. Echocardiography and dobutamine stress echocardiography were performed before and after injury. Cardiac contractile indexes were assessed in vivo at study termination via a left ventricular pressure-volume conductance catheter. Stroke volume was reduced after SCI (91 µl in the NO-EX group vs. 188 µl in the CON group, P < 0.05) and was reversed at study termination in the PHLC (167 µl) but not SWIM (90 µl) group. Rates of contraction were reduced in NO-EX versus CON groups (6,079 vs. 9,225 mmHg, respectively, P < 0.05) and were unchanged by PHLC and SWIM training. Similarly, end-systolic elastance was reduced in the NO-EX versus CON groups (0.67 vs. 1.37 mmHg/µl, respectively, P < 0.05) and was unchanged by PHLC or SWIM training. Dobutamine infusion normalized all pressure indexes in each SCI group (all P < 0.05). In conclusion, PHLC improves flow-derived cardiac indexes, whereas SWIM training displayed no cardiobeneficial effect. Pressure-derived deficits were corrected only with dobutamine, suggesting that reduced β-adrenergic stimulation is principally responsible for the impaired cardiac contractile function after SCI. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first direct comparison between the cardiac changes elicited by active upper-limb or passive lower-limb exercise after spinal cord injury. Here, we demonstrate that lower-limb exercise positively influences flow-derived cardiac indexes, whereas upper-limb exercise does not. Furthermore, neither intervention corrects the cardiac contractile dysfunction associated with spinal cord injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207