Effects of L-type voltage-gated Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blockade on cholinergic and thermal sweating in habitually trained and untrained men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the hypothesis that the activation of L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channels contributes to exercise training-induced augmentation in cholinergic sweating. On separate days, 10 habitually trained and 10 untrained men participated in two experimental protocols. Prior to each protocol, we administered 1% verapamil (Verapamil, L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channel blocker) and saline (Control) at forearm skin sites on both arms via transdermal iontophoresis. In protocol 1, we administered low (0.001%) and high (1%) doses of pilocarpine at both the verapamil-treated and verapamil-untreated forearm sites. In protocol 2, participants were passively heated by immersing their limbs in hot water (43°C) until rectal temperature increased by 1.0°C above baseline resting levels. Sweat rate at all forearm sites was continuously measured throughout both protocols. Pilocarpine-induced sweating in Control was higher in trained than in untrained men for both the concentrations of pilocarpine (both P ≤ 0.001). Pilocarpine-induced sweating at the low-dose site was attenuated at the Verapamil versus the Control site in both the groups (both P ≤ 0.004), albeit the reduction was greater in trained as compared with in untrained men ( P = 0.005). The verapamil-mediated reduction in sweating remained intact at the high-dose pilocarpine site in the untrained men ( P = 0.004) but not the trained men ( P = 0.180). Sweating did not differ between Control and Verapamil sites with increases in rectal temperature in both groups (interaction, P = 0.571). We show that activation of L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channels modulates sweat production in habitually trained men induced by a low dose of pilocarpine. However, no effect on sweating was observed during passive heating in either group.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".