Associations between left ventricular structure and function with cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition in individuals with cervical and upper thoracic spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Study design Cross-sectional. Objective It is known that left ventricular mass (LVM) and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated to fat-free mass (FFM). It is unknown if these factors associated with left ventricular (LV) structure and function outcomes in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Setting University-based laboratory.Vancouver, BC, Canada. Methods Thirty-two individuals (aged 40 ± 11 years) with chronic, motor-complete SCI between the fourth cervical and sixth thoracic levels were recruited. Echocardiographic LV parameters and body composition were assessed at rest, as per the recommended guidelines for each technique. CRF was assessed during an incremental arm-cycle exercise test until volitional fatigue. The appropriate bivariate correlation coefficients [i.e., Pearson’s (r) and Spearman’s rank (Rs)] tests were used for normal and non-normal distributed variables, respectively. Results LV structure and function parameters were not associated with the indexed peak oxygen consumption (V̇O2peak) [i.e., relative to body weight or FFM] (Rs values ranged from −0.168 to 0.134, all P values > 0.223). The association between peak oxygen pulse and the resting echocardiographic-obtained SV was medium sized (Rs = 0.331, P = 0.069). The LVM associations with FFM and fat mass (FM) were large and small (r = 0.614, P < 0.001 and r = 0.266, P = 0.141, respectively). Associations of absolute V̇O2peak were medium- positive with FFM (Rs = 0.414, P = 0.021) but negative with FM (Rs = −0.332, P = 0.068). Conclusion LV parameters measured at rest are not associated with V̇O2peak in individuals with cervical and upper-thoracic SCI. Given the observed associations between LVM and V̇O2peak with FFM, future studies may consider utilizing FFM for indexing cardiovascular measures following SCI.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".