Differences in Left Ventricular Function at Rest and During Isometric Handgrip Exercise in Elite Swimmers, Water Polo Players, and Artistic Swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Elite swimmers (SW) have reduced diastolic function compared to elite runners, possibly as an adaptation to the aquatic training environment. Water polo players (WP) and artistic swimmers (AS) are exposed to the same hydrostatic pressures as SW, but are subject to different training intensities, postures, and hemodynamic stressors. Our purpose was to compare resting and exercising cardiac function in elite SW, WP, and AS, to characterize the influence of training for aquatic-sport on left ventricular (LV) adaptation.Methods: Ninety athletes (SW:20M/17F; WP:21M/9F; AS:23F) at the 2019 FINA World Championships volunteered for resting and stress (3min 30% maximal isometric handgrip) echocardiographic assessment of LV global function and mechanics. Results: Male SW displayed improved resting systolic and diastolic function compared to WP; however, both groups maintained stroke volume under high-pressure handgrip stress (SW:∆-4±12%; WP:∆-1±13%, P=0.11). There were no differences between female SW and WP resting LV function, but SW demonstrated improved function over AS. During isometric handgrip, all female sport athletes maintained stroke volume (SW:∆3±16%; WP:∆-10±11%; AS:∆-2±14%, P=0.46), but WP had improved apical rotation (∆1.7±4.5°), which was reduced in AS (∆-3.1±4.5°) and maintained in SW (∆-0.5±3.8°, P=0.04). Unlike SW and WP, AS displayed a unique maintenance of early filling velocity during handgrip exercise (SW:∆-3.5±14.7cm/s; WP:∆-15.1±10.8cm/s; AS:∆1.5±15.3cm/s, P=0.02).Conclusion: Among male athletes, SW display primarily volume-based functional adaptations distinct from the mixed volume-pressure adaptations of WP; however, both groups can maintain stroke volume with increased afterload. Female SW and WP do not demonstrate sport-specific differences like males, perhaps owing to sex-differences in adaptation, but have greater volume-based adaptations than AS. Lastly, AS display unique functional adaptations, that may be driven by elevated pressures under low-volume 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".