Acute intraocular pressure responses to high-intensity interval-training protocols in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed (1) to test the acute impact of two high-intensity interval-training (HIIT) protocols differing in the level of effort on intraocular pressure (IOP) responses, and (2) to elucidate whether the IOP responses differ between men and women. Twenty-four physically active collegiate (12 men and 12 women) performed three protocols: low-fatigue HIIT (eight 30-m sprints with 60-s of rest), high-fatigue HIIT (eight 30-m sprints with 30-s of rest), and control (walking). IOP was taken at baseline, after sprints and recovery by rebound tonometry. Our data revealed an acute IOP reduction during both HIIT protocols compared to the control condition (effect size [ES]:0.81-1.65). The differences between both HIIT protocols were generally negligible (ES<0.30), however, the reduction of IOP was moderately higher for the low-fatigue HIIT protocol after the 7th (ES: 0.67) and 8th (ES: 0.74) sprints. Women showed a more prominent lowering effect on IOP during the control condition (ES: 0.42-1.02), and during the two first sprints of both HIIT protocols (ES: 0.54-1.03). These findings highlight that a time-efficient HIIT protocol may acutely reduce IOP levels, while low-fatigue HIIT protocol could be recommended since it induced a higher reduction on IOP than the high-fatigue HIIT protocol.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".