MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Sex Differences in Heart Rate Response to Isometric Handgrip Exercise with Concurrent Contralateral Forearm Somatosensory Stimulation

2018· article· en· W3177462812 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kaitlyn Jacobs, Emilie Woerhle, Stephen A. Klassen, S E Smith, Andrea L. Barker, Rachel Knestch, J. Kevin Shoemaker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseMedicineHeart rateSupine positionForearmCardiologyBlood pressureRepeated measures designAnesthesiaInternal medicinePhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Pharmacological evidence indicates that baseline cardiovagal mechanisms determine the rapid heart rate (HR) response to the onset of moderate intensity isometric handgrip (IHG) exercise. The HR response at exercise onset expresses sex differences, being less in females. Further, somatosensory nerve stimulation (STIM) appears to affect baseline cardiovagal control in some supine participants. Objective This study explored the effect of STIM on HR and heart rate variability (HRV) during short‐duration moderate‐intensity IHG in supine healthy adults and explored whether this effect expresses sex differences. Participants Twenty‐four young healthy individuals aged 23 ± 1.9 years (18 females (F): 165 ± 7.4cm, 63 ± 13kg, BMI 23 ± 2kg/m 2 ; 6 males (M): 179 ± 2.2cm, 79 ± 11kg, BMI 25 ± 3.3kg/m 2 ). Methods Participants performed six isometric handgrips with their right hand at 30 to 40% of their maximal grip strength, each lasting 20 to 30 seconds and separated by one minute of rest. Three of these IHG contractions were performed during simultaneous administration of sub‐motor STIM provided by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS; 100 Hz, 50 μs) on the medial contralateral forearm through anesthetized skin for the duration of the handgrip. A 3‐lead ECG provided R‐R interval data. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were monitored, as well as, heart rate (HR), root mean square of successive differences in R‐R intervals (RMSSD) as a measure of HRV, and respiration. Data were analysed using two‐factor ANOVA with Bonferroni correction, and independent t‐tests. Results The ΔHR from baseline to IHG without STIM was greater in males compared to females (12 ± 6bpm versus 6 ± 6bpm, respectively; d = 1.00). No differences in ΔHR were detected for either sex when STIM was added to the IHG. Of the 18 F participants, 4 provided a minimal HR response (ΔHR > 4bpm) to the IHG without STIM (F1: 77 to 79bpm; F2: 69 to 70 bpm; F3: 50 to 50bpm; F4: 62 to 62 bpm) which resolved in 3 of the 4 F participants with application of STIM (F1:73 to 83bpm; F3: 45 to 59bpm; F4: 54 to 60bpm). Further, no statistically significant differences were observed in ΔRMSSD from baseline to IHG without STIM (p = 0.0321; M: 77 ± 68ms to 30 ± 145ms; F: 74 ± 38ms to 54 ± 39ms) and with STIM (p = 0.953; M: −28 ± 61ms and F: −30 ± 21ms). Conclusion Our preliminary findings suggest that, in supine individuals, sex differences exist in the HR response at the exercise onset but these effects are not modified by concurrent sub‐motor somatosensory nerve stimulation. Support or Funding Information Supported by Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→