Muscle oxygenation during normoxic and hypoxic cycling exercise in humans with high‐affinity haemoglobin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NEW FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? Do humans with high-affinity haemoglobin (HAH) demonstrate attenuated skeletal muscle deoxygenation during normoxic and hypoxic exercise? What is the main finding and its importance? Examination of near-infrared spectroscopy-derived muscle oxygenation profiles suggests that fractional oxygen extraction is blunted during hypoxic exercise in humans with HAH compared with control subjects. However, muscle tissue oxygen saturation levels were higher in humans with HAH during exercise in normoxia compared with control subjects. These alterations in fractional oxygen extraction in humans with HAH might influence blood flow regulation and exercise capacity during hypoxia. ABSTRACT: Recently, researchers in our laboratory have shown that humans with genetic mutations resulting in high-affinity haemoglobin (HAH) demonstrate better maintained aerobic capacity and peak power output during hypoxic exercise versus normoxic exercise in comparison to humans with normal-affinity haemoglobin. However, the influence of HAH on tissue oxygenation within exercising muscle during normoxia and hypoxia is unknown. Therefore, we examined near-infrared spectroscopy-derived oxygenation profiles of the vastus lateralis during graded cycling exercise in normoxia and hypoxia among humans with HAH (n = 5) and control subjects with normal-affinity haemoglobin (n = 12). The HAH group elicited a blunted increase of deoxygenated haemoglobin + myoglobin during hypoxic exercise compared with the control group (P = 0.03), suggesting reduced fractional oxygen extraction in the HAH group. In addition, the HAH group maintained a higher level of muscle tissue oxygen saturation during normoxic exercise (HAH, 75 ± 4% vs. controls, 65 ± 3%, P = 0.049) and there were no differences between groups in muscle tissue oxygen saturation during hypoxic exercise (HAH, 68 ± 3% vs. controls, 68 ± 2%, P = 0.943). Overall, our results suggest that humans with HAH might demonstrate divergent patterns of fractional oxygen extraction during hypoxic exercise and elevated muscle tissue oxygenation during normoxic exercise compared with control subjects.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".