Intraocular pressure during handgrip exercise: The effect of posture and hypercapnia in young males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose As part of our investigations of intraocular pressure (IOP) as a potential contributing factor to the spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome using the 6° head-down tilt (6°HDT) bed rest experimental model, we compared the effect of rest and isometric exercise in prone and supine 6°HDT positions on IOP with that observed in the seated position. Methods Ten male volunteers (age = 22.5 ± 3.1 yrs) participated in six interventions. All trials comprised a 10-min rest period, a 3-min isometric handgrip exercise at 30% of participant's maximum, and a 10-min recovery period. The trials were conducted under normocapnic (NCAP) or hypercapnic (FICO2 = 0.01; HCAP) conditions, the latter mimicking the ambient conditions on the International Space Station. IOP, systolic and diastolic pressures, and heart rate (HR) were measured during the trials. Results Isometric exercise-induced elevations in HR and mean arterial blood pressure. IOP in the prone 6°HDT position was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to IOP in supine 6°HDT position and seated trials at all time points. IOP increased with exercise only in a seated HCAP trial (p = 0.042). No difference was observed between trials in NCAP and HCAP. IOP in the prone 6°HDT position was constantly elevated above 21 mmHg, the lower limit for clinical ocular hypertension. Conclusions IOP in the prone 6°HDT position was similar to IOP reported in astronauts upon entering microgravity, potentially indicating that prone, rather than supine 6°HDT position might be a more suitable experimental analog for investigating the acute ocular changes that occur in microgravity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".