Comparison of the acute effects of ankle bathing versus moderate-intensity aerobic exercise on vascular function in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the efficacy of ankle bathing versus aerobic exercise to improve vascular function in young adults who were randomized to aerobic exercise (AE) (n = 13, 40%–60% of heart rate reserve), ankle bathing (AB) (n = 15, 43 °C), or a control condition (CON) (n = 14, ankle bathing, 36 °C) for 40 min. Conduit vessel function [brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD)], carotid and femoral artery blood flow and shear rate (SR), and arterial stiffness [carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV), augmentation index (AIx@75), β-stiffness index, and arterial compliance] were evaluated. Compared with CON, AE and AB increased FMD at 30 min and 90 min (interaction: p < 0.05); AB decreased carotid artery blood flow and SR at 30 min, while both AE and AB increased femoral artery blood flow and SR at 30 min and 90 min (interaction: p < 0.05); AE and AB decreased cf-PWV and AIx@75 at 30 min and 90 min (interaction: p < 0.05); and AE improved both carotid and femoral β-stiffness index and arterial compliance, while AB reduced β-stiffness index and increased arterial compliance only in the femoral artery (interaction: p < 0.05). These findings suggest that ankle bathing may serve as an alternative strategy for enhancing vascular function. Novelty: We observed similar improvements in conduit vessel function, femoral artery blood flow and shear rate, and arterial stiffness following ankle bathing and acute aerobic exercise in young adults. These findings have identified ankle bathing as a potential therapeutic strategy for enhancing vascular function, which may be particularly relevant for those with limited ability to engage in regular aerobic exercise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".