Cardiac Autonomic and Physiological Responses to Moderate- intensity Exercise in Hypoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exercise physiological responses can be markedly affected by acute hypoxia. We investigated cardiac autonomic and physiological responses to different hypoxic training protocols. Thirteen men performed three exercise sessions (5×5-min; 1-min passive recovery): normoxic exercise at 80% of the power output (PO) at the first ventilatory threshold (N), hypoxic exercise (FiO2=14.2%) with the same PO as N (HPO) and hypoxic exercise at the same heart rate (HR) as N (HHR). PO was lower in HHR (21.1±9.3%) compared to N and HPO. Mean HR was higher in HPO (154±11 bpm, p<0.01) than N and HHR (139±10 vs. 138±9 bpm; p=0.80). SpO2 was reduced (p<0.01) to a similar extent (p>0.05) in HPO and HHR compared to N. HR recovery (HRR) and HR variability indices were similar in N and HHR (p>0.05) but reduced in HPO (p<0.05), mirroring a delayed parasympathetic reactivation. Blood lactate and ventilation were similar in N and HHR (p>0.05) and increased in HPO (p<0.001). During recovery oxygen consumption and ventilation were similar in N and HHR (p>0.05) and increased in HPO (p<0.01). Moderate HR-matched hypoxic exercise triggers similar cardiac autonomic and physiological responses to normoxic exercise with a reduced mechanical load. On the contrary, the same absolute intensity exercise in hypoxia is associated with increased exercise-induced metabolic stress and delayed cardiac autonomic recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".