Hypercapnia augments resistive exercise‐induced elevations in intraocular pressure in older individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Findings What is the central question of this study? Astronauts on‐board the International Space Station (ISS) perform daily exercises designed to prevent muscle atrophy and bone demineralization: what is the effect of resistive exercise performed by subjects while exposed to the same level of hypercapnia as on the ISS on intraocular pressure (IOP)? What is the main finding and its importance? The static exercise‐induced elevation in IOP during 6° prone head‐down tilt (simulating the headward shift of body fluids in microgravity) is augmented by hypercapnia and exceeds the ocular hypertension threshold. Abstract The present study assessed the effect of 6° head‐down (establishing the cephalad fluid displacement noted in astronauts in microgravity) prone (simulating the effect on the eye) tilt during rest and exercise (simulating exercise performed by astronauts to mitigate the sarcopenia induced by unloading of weight‐bearing limbs), in normocapnic and hypercapnic conditions (the latter simulating conditions on the International Space Station) on intraocular pressure (IOP). Volunteers (mean age = 57.8 ± 6 years, n = 10) participated in two experimental sessions, each comprising: (i) 10 min rest, (ii) 3 min static handgrip exercise (30% max), and (iii) 2 min recovery, inspiring either room air (NCAP) or a hypercapnic mixture (1% CO 2 , HCAP). We measured IOP in the right eye, cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at regular intervals. Baseline IOP in the upright seated position while breathing room air was 14.1 ± 2.9 mmHg. Prone 6° head‐down tilt significantly ( P < 0.01) elevated IOP in all three phases of the NCAP (rest: 27.0 ± 3.7 mmHg; exercise: 32.2 ± 4.8 mmHg; recovery: 27.4 ± 4.0 mmHg) and HCAP (rest: 27.3 ± 4.3 mmHg; exercise: 34.2 ± 6.0 mmHg; recovery: 29.1 ± 5.8 mmHg) trials, with hypercapnia augmenting the exercise‐induced elevation in IOP ( P < 0.01). CO, SV, HR and MAP were significantly increased during handgrip dynamometry, but there was no effect of hypercapnia. The observed IOP measured during prone 6° HDT in all phases of the NCAP and HCAP trials exceeded the threshold pressure defining ocular hypertension. The exercise‐induced increase in IOP is exacerbated by hypercapnia.
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".