MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214526174 · doi:10.1177/1358863x211073480

What is the impact of aerobic fitness and movement interventions on low-flow-mediated vasoconstriction? A systematic review of observational and intervention studies

2022· article· en· W4214526174 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAerobic exerciseObservational studyPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Physical fitnessCardiovascular fitnessSittingQuality of life (healthcare)Systematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cardiovascular benefits of physical exercise are well established. The vasoreactivity that occurs during reductions in local arterial blood flow, termed low-flow-mediated constriction (L-FMC), is a measure of endothelial-dependent vasoconstrictor function. It is unclear whether aerobic fitness and movement (or lack thereof) influences L-FMC. We systematically reviewed studies examining the impact of physical behaviours on L-FMC. To be included, cross-sectional and interventional studies had to examine the impact of a physical behaviour on L-FMC in adults. There were no language or date of publication restrictions. Sources were searched in May, 2021 and included Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Academic Search Premier. National Institutes of Health quality assessment tools were used. Fourteen studies (15 arms; 313 participants; 398 total observations from four arteries) met the inclusion criteria. The study quality varied from four out of 14 (controlled intervention scoring) to nine out of 12 (longitudinal intervention with no control group scoring) with the total points dependent upon the study design. Conflicting results were reported for acute prolonged sitting studies (attenuated L-FMC: n = 1; no change: n = 1) and resistance exercise (increased L-FMC: n = 2; no change: n = 2). Most observational studies examining aerobic fitness (3/4 studies) and aerobic exercise interventions (4/5 studies) observed a favourable effect on L-FMC. Overall, the included studies support that higher aerobic fitness and engaging in aerobic exercise training may augment L-FMC responses. Our systematic review highlights the heterogeneity between studies and identifies current gaps and future directions to better our understanding of (in)activity, exercise, and posture on endothelial vasoconstrictor function. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42021248241

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.320 · 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