MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sympathetic Responses to Isometric Handgrip Exercise in Women following Preeclamptic Pregnancies

2022· article· en· W4225390903 on OpenAlexaff
Harlan R. Orr, Tessa E. Adler, Cheryl Leone, Michael J. Paidas, Nina S. Stachenfeld, Charlotte W. Usselman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroneurographyMedicineIsometric exerciseBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicinePregnancyHeart rateBaroreflexAnesthesiaPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women who have had preeclamptic (PE) pregnancies are at increased risk for developing cardiovascular diseases later in life. One potential mechanism that may mediate this increased risk is sympathetic dysregulation. Indeed, there is evidence for elevated muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) both during and following PE pregnancies. Moreover, previously PE (PPE) women may demonstrate impaired MSNA responses during stress, although this has only been examined to a limited extent. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that MSNA responses to isometric hand grip exercise (HG) would be greater in PPE women (n=6, age 31±6 years, BMI 29±5 kg/m 2 , 17±4 months postpartum) compared with women who had a healthy pregnancy (HP; n=8, age 29±2, BMI 25±4 kg/m 2 , 14±4 months postpartum). MSNA (peroneal nerve microneurography), mean arterial pressure (MAP; finger photoplethysmography), and total peripheral resistance (TPR; MAP/cardiac output), were assessed at baseline, during a 2‐min HG protocol, and during 2‐min post‐exercise circulatory occlusion (PECO). As previously reported, baseline MSNA was higher in PPE than HP (22±7 vs 13±5 bursts/min, P=0.01). Baseline MAP was not different between PPE and HP (94±11 vs 89±9 mmHg, P=0.23), nor was TPR (13±3 vs 13±2 mmHg/L/min, P=0.63). During HG, MSNA was greater in PPE than HP (24±8 vs 16±6 bursts/min, P=0.03), whereas MAP was not different between PPE and HP (95±12 vs 95±11 mmHg, P=0.99), nor was TPR (13±3 vs 14±2 mmHg/L/min, P=0.39). During PECO, no differences were observed between PPE and HP women in MSNA (26±8 vs 18±6 bursts/min, P=0.08), MAP (93±12 vs 96±12 mmHg, P=0.70), or TPR (12±3 vs 15±2 mmHg/L/min, P=0.18). These findings indicate that PPE women demonstrate exaggerated MSNA during isometric HG exercise relative to HP women, although the role of the metaboreflex in mediating this effect, as assessed using PECO, remains unclear. Importantly, these data also demonstrate that young PPE women were able to buffer the deleterious cardiovascular outcomes of elevated MSNA such that MAP and TPR outcomes were similar to age‐matched HP women during all conditions.

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)0.002
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207