Effect of Unintentional Boosting on Exercise Performance in a Tetraplegic Athlete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boosting is the induction of autonomic dysreflexia (AD) to reflexively activate otherwise dormant thoracolumbar sympathetic circuitry to "boost" the capacity of the cardiovascular system and enhance exercise performance. AD is a life-threatening condition unique to individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) characterized by a sudden increase in sympathetic activity below the level of the SCI. Here we report on the temporal HR response to an episode of unintentional boosting during a validated field-based exercise performance test in an athlete with tetraplegia.An athlete with SCI (C6 motor-complete, sensory-incomplete) completed a 20 ×20 m repeated sprint field test on two consecutive days. During the 13th sprint on day 2, the athlete unintentionally boosted via bladder overdistension. Average HR when boosted (i.e., sprints 14-20) was considerably higher than before boosting (141 ± 4 vs 116 ± 7 bpm) and compared with corresponding sprints on day 1 (141 ± 4 bpm vs 120 ± 1 bpm). Average time to complete 20 m sprints when boosted was also faster than the corresponding sprints on day 1 (6.70 ± 0.05 s vs 6.87 ± 0.05 s).This case report highlights the immediate effect of boosting on HR and field-based exercise performance and supports the suggestion that exercise performance in athletes with SCI is limited by cardiovascular capacity.
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".