Aortic haemodynamics: the effects of habitual endurance exercise, age and muscle sympathetic vasomotor outflow in healthy men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determined the effect of habitual endurance exercise and age on aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV), augmentation pressure (AP) and systolic blood pressure (aSBP), with statistical adjustments of aPWV and AP for heart rate and aortic mean arterial pressure, when appropriate. Furthermore, we assessed whether muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) correlates with AP in young and middle-aged men. METHODS: Aortic PWV, AP, aortic blood pressure (applanation tonometry; SphygmoCor) and MSNA (peroneal microneurography) were recorded in 46 normotensive men who were either young or middle-aged and endurance-trained runners or recreationally active nonrunners (10 nonrunners and 13 runners within each age-group). Between-group differences and relationships between variables were assessed via ANOVA/ANCOVA and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, respectively. RESULTS: Adjusted aPWV and adjusted AP were similar between runners and nonrunners in both age groups (all, P > 0.05), but higher with age (all, P < 0.001), with a greater effect size for the age-related difference in AP in runners (Hedges' g, 3.6 vs 2.6). aSBP was lower in young (P = 0.009; g = 2.6), but not middle-aged (P = 0.341; g = 1.1), runners compared to nonrunners. MSNA burst frequency did not correlate with AP in either age group (young: r = 0.00, P = 0.994; middle-aged: r = - 0.11, P = 0.604). CONCLUSION: There is an age-dependent effect of habitual exercise on aortic haemodynamics, with lower aSBP in young runners compared to nonrunners only. Statistical adjustment of aPWV and AP markedly influenced the outcomes of this study, highlighting the importance of performing these analyses. Further, peripheral sympathetic vasomotor outflow and AP were not correlated in young or middle-aged normotensive men.
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".