MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3097535411 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002554

Cardiac Responses to Submaximal Isometric Contraction and Aerobic Exercise in Healthy Pregnancy

2020· article· en· W3097535411 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria L. Meah, Karianne Backx, John R. Cockcroft, Rob Shave, Eric J. Stöhr

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyCardiac outputPregnancyGestationCardiac function curveContraction (grammar)Aerobic exerciseEndocrinologyBlood pressureHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The increased physiological demand of pregnancy results in the profound adaptation of the maternal cardiovascular system, reflected by greater resting cardiac output and left ventricular (LV) deformation. Whether the increased resting demand alters acute cardiac responses to exercise in healthy pregnant women is not well understood. METHODS: Healthy nonpregnant (n = 18), pregnant (n = 14, 22-26 wk gestation), and postpartum women (n = 13, 12-16 wk postdelivery) underwent assessments of cardiac function and LV mechanics at rest, during a sustained isometric forearm contraction (30% maximum), and during low-intensity (LOW) and moderate-intensity (MOD) dynamic cycling exercise (25% and 50% peak power output). Significant differences (α = 0.05) were determined using ANCOVA and general linear model (resting value included as covariate). RESULTS: When accounting for higher resting cardiac output in pregnant women, pregnant women had greater cardiac output during isometric contraction (2.0 ± 0.3 L·min-1·m-1.83; nonpregnant, 1.3 ± 0.2 L·min-1·m-1.83; postpartum, 1.5 ± 0.5 L·min-1·m-1.83; P = 0.02) but similar values during dynamic cycling exercise (pregnant, LOW = 2.8 ± 0.4 L·min-1·m-1.83, MOD = 3.4 ± 0.7 L·min-1·m-1.83; nonpregnant, LOW = 2.4 ± 0.3 L·min-1·m-1.83, MOD = 3.0 ± 0.3 L·min-1·m-1.83; postpartum, LOW = 2.3 ± 0.4 L·min-1·m-1.83, MOD = 3.0 ± 0.5 L·min-1·m-1.83; P = 0.96). Basal circumferential strain was higher in pregnant women at rest, during the sustained isometric forearm contraction (-23.5% ± 1.2%; nonpregnant, -14.6% ± 1.4%; P = 0.001), and during dynamic cycling exercise (LOW = -27.0% ± 4.9%, MOD = -27.4% ± 4.6%; nonpregnant, LOW = -15.8% ± 4.5%, MOD = -15.2% ± 6.7%; P = 0.012); however, other parameters of LV mechanics were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: The results support that the maternal heart can appropriately respond to additional cardiac demand and altered loading experienced during acute isometric and dynamic exercise, although subtle differences in responses to these challenges were observed. In addition, the LV mechanics that underpin global cardiac function are greater in pregnant women during exercise, leading to the speculation that the hormonal milieu of pregnancy influences regional deformation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→