Sex differences in the ventilatory and cardiovascular response to supine and tilted metaboreflex activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women have attenuated exercise pressor responses compared to men; however, their cerebrovascular and ventilatory responses have not been previously measured. Furthermore, recent evidence has shown that posture change can influence the response of the metaboreflex but this has only been tested in men. Young and healthy men (n = 14; age: 21 ± 2) and women (n = 11; age: 19 ± 1) underwent 40% MVC static handgrip exercise (HG) for 2 min followed by 3 min of post-exercise circulatory occlusion (PECO) in the supine and 70° tilted postures. In supine position during HG and PECO only men had an increase in ventilation (Men: Baseline: 12.5 ± 1.7 L/min, HG: 18.6 ± 5.3 L/min, PECO: 17.7 ± 10.3 L/min; Women: Baseline: 12.0 ± 1.5 L/min, HG: 12.4 ± 1.2 L/min, PECO: 11.5 ± 1.3 L/min; Sex × Time interaction P = 0.037). In supine position during HG and PECO men and women had similar reductions in cerebrovascular conductance (Men: Baseline: 0.79 ± 0.13 cm/sec/mmHg, HG: 0.68 ± 0.18 cm/sec/mmHg, PECO: 0.61 ± 0.19 cm/s/mmHg; Women: Baseline: 0.87 ± 0.13 cm/sec/mmHg, HG: 0.83 ± 0.14 cm/sec/mmHg, PECO: 0.75 ± 0.17 cm/sec/mmHg; P < 0.015 HG/PECO vs. baseline). When comparing the response to PECO in the supine versus upright postures there was a significant attenuation in the increase in mean arterial pressure in both men and women (Supine posture: Men: +23.3 ± 14.5 mmHg, Women: +12.0 ± 7.3 mmHg; Upright posture: Men: +15.7 ± 14.1 mmHg, Women: +7.7 ± 6.7 mmHg; Main effect of sex P = 0.042, Main effect of posture P < 0.001). Our results indicate sexually dimorphic ventilatory responses to HG and PECO which could be due to different interactions of the metaboreflex and chemoreflex. We have also shown evidence of attenuated metaboreflex function in the upright posture in both 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) | 0.004 | 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".