Effects of combined histamine H<sub>1</sub> and H<sub>2</sub> receptor blockade on hemodynamic responses to dynamic exercise in males with high-normal blood pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While postexercise hypotension is associated with histamine H 1 and H 2 receptor-mediated postexercise vasodilation, effects of histaminergic vasodilation on blood pressure (BP) in response to dynamic exercise are not known. Thus, in 20 recreationally active male participants (10 normotensive and 10 with high-normal BP) we examined the effects of histamine H 1 and H 2 receptor blockade on cardiac output (CO), mean atrial pressure (MAP), aortic stiffness (AoStiff), and total vascular conductance (TVC) at rest and during progressive cycling exercise. Compared with the normotensive group, MAP, CO, and AoStiff were higher in the high-normal group before and after the blockade at rest, while TVC was similar. At the 40% workload, the blockade significantly increased MAP in both groups, while no difference was found in the TVC. CO was higher in the high-normal group than the normotensive group in both conditions. At the 60% workload, the blockade substantially increased MAP and decreased TVC in the normotensive group, while there were no changes in the high-normal group. A similar CO response pattern was observed at the 60% workload. These findings suggest that the mechanism eliciting an exaggerated BP response to exercise in the high-normal group may be partially due to the inability of histamine receptors. Novelty Males with high-normal BP had an exaggerated BP response to exercise. The overactive BP response is known due to an increase in peripheral vasoconstriction. Increase in peripheral vasoconstriction is partially due to inability of histamine receptors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".