MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cardiovascular Responses to the Exercise Pressor Reflex in Pediatric Heart Transplant Recipients

2019· article· en· W3177196151 on OpenAlexaff
Corey R Blushke, Natasha G. Boyes, Dana S. Lahti, Kylee Kosokowsky, Darcy D. Marciniuk, Scotty Butcher, Marta Erlandson, Kristi D. Wright, Scott Pharis, Charissa Pockett, Corey R. Tomczak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart rateStroke volumeIsometric exerciseInternal medicineCardiologyBlood pressureReflexAnesthesiaMean arterial pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric heart transplant recipients (HTR) have reduced exercise tolerance despite normal systolic ventricular function. A slower heart rate adaptation to exercise in HTR due to cardiac denervation is commonly observed in HTR patients, which explains, in part, the exercise intolerance. We tested the hypothesis that the cardiovascular response to exercise pressor reflex activation from handgrip exercise would be blunted in HTR. Methods Six pediatric HTR (3f/3m; mean±SD, 10±3 yrs) and five healthy‐matched controls (CTL; 3f/2m; 10±2 yrs) were studied. After 3 min of resting baseline, subjects performed 2 min of isometric handgrip (HG) exercise at 40% maximal voluntary contraction, followed by 3 min post‐exercise circulatory occlusion (PECO). Beat‐by‐beat mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and modelflow stroke volume and cardiac output were recorded. Data were analysed as the change (Δ) from rest using two‐way repeated measures ANOVA (2 × 3; group × condition) and Holm‐Sidak multiple comparisons analysis. Significance was accepted at P <0.05. Results Mean arterial pressure increased in HTR (Δ17±15 mmHg) and CTL (Δ13±16 mL) during HG ( P <0.001) and remained elevated above baseline during PECO (HTR: Δ10±10 mmHg; CTL: Δ11±9 mmHg; P <0.05), with no between group differences. Heart rate did not significantly increase during HG in HTR (Δ4±5 bpm, P =0.235) but did in CTL (Δ14±11 bpm, P <0.001), and was 9 bpm lower in HTR vs CTL ( P =0.005). Heart rate was not different during PECO from rest in HTR and CTL. Stroke volume increased in HTR (Δ3±1 mL) and CTL (Δ3±3 mL) during HG ( P <0.001) and remained elevated above baseline during PECO (HTR: Δ3±2 mL; CTL: Δ4±3 mL; P <0.001), with no between group differences. Cardiac output did not significantly increase during HG in HTR (Δ0.34±0.21 L/min, P =0.074) but did in CTL (Δ0.71±0.54 L/min, P <0.001), and was 0.37 L/min lower in HTR vs CTL ( P =0.035). Cardiac output was not different during PECO from rest in HTR and CTL. Conclusions Owing to the impaired heart rate response during handgrip exercise, cardiac output was lower in pediatric HTR compared to healthy‐matched controls in response to exercise pressor reflex activation. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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)0.001
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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→