Sildenafil does not reliably improve exercise performance in hypoxia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Sildenafil is a pulmonary vasodilator that may reduce the decrement in endurance performance in moderate hypoxia. We assessed the efficacy of sildenafil to improve performance in hypoxia. Data sources/eligibility Criteria We systematically searched electronic databases (until August 2018) for randomised trials comparing sildenafil with placebo. We also examined the effect of sildenafil on pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), cardiac output (CO) and pulse oxygen saturation (S P O 2 ) compared with placebo in hypoxia. Fourteen studies were included; 210 subjects received sildenafil 40, 50 or 100 mg/day. Results Sildenafil showed a large effect for decreasing PAP during exercise and at rest, a small effect for increasing CO during exercise and a moderate effect at rest, a moderate effect for increasing S P O 2 and a small effect for improving performance. In a subgroup analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between 100 and 50 mg sildenafil dose on S P O 2 . Sildenafil had a moderate effect on increasing S P O 2 and performance at terrestrial hypobaric altitude but only a small effect on both in normobaric hypoxia. Regression analysis showed that hypoxic dose (PO 2 ) and metabolic rate do not account for a significant portion of the variance in effect size for sildenafil on PAP, CO, S P O 2 and performance. Conclusion This meta-analysis indicates that sildenafil reduces PAP, has a moderate to small effect on CO and S P O 2 , and no effect on performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".