Sex Differences in Cardiac Baroreflex Sensitivity after Isometric Handgrip Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate potential sex-related differences on spontaneous cardiac baroreflex sensitivity (cBRS) after acute isometric handgrip (IHG) exercise. METHODS: Twenty men (age, 23 ± 3 yr) and 20 women (age, 24 ± 4 yr) randomly performed four sets of 2-min IHG exercise (two sets for each limb) at 30% maximal voluntary contraction (experimental) or 3% maximal voluntary contraction (sham). Beat-to-beat heart rate (HR) and arterial blood pressure (BP) were monitored using finger photoplethysmography before and 10, 20, and 30 min after IHG. Spontaneous cBRS was assessed via the sequence technique and cardiac autonomic modulation via time- and frequency-domain HR variability. RESULTS: After IHG, spontaneous cBRS increased during 10 min of recovery in men (Δ13% ± 5%, P = 0.03 vs rest) and increased further in women (Δ23% ± 4%, P < 0.01 vs rest; P = 0.04 vs men). During 20 and 30 min of recovery, cBRS returned to baseline in men but remained elevated in women. HR decreased 10 min after IHG in men (10 min: Δ-2 ± 1 bpm, P < 0.01 vs rest; 20 min: Δ-1 ± 1 bpm, P = 0.39 vs rest; 30 min: Δ1 ± 1 bpm, P = 0.31 vs rest) and throughout recovery in women (10 min: Δ-5 ± 1 bpm, P < 0.01 vs rest; 20 min: Δ-3 ± 1 bpm, P < 0.01 vs rest; 30 min: Δ-2 ± 1 bpm, P < 0.01 vs rest). Systolic BP increased 10 min after IHG and remained elevated during 20 min and 30 min in men (P < 0.05). In women, systolic BP increased during 10 min (P < 0.01) and returned to baseline during 20 and 30 min of recovery. Time-domain HR variability (root mean square of successive differences) was increased during recovery in men and women (P < 0.05). Sham had no effect on any variables. CONCLUSIONS: Acute IHG exercise increases cBRS and cardiac vagal activity in healthy young subjects, but the magnitude and the time course of changes in cBRS differ between men and 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".