MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292230074 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000002110

Effect of Aerobic Exercise at Different Intensities on Intraocular Pressure in Young Males

2022· article· en· W4292230074 on OpenAlexaff
Fatima Alfaqeeh, Haidar Djemai, Rami Hammad, Saleh Hammad, Philippe Noirez, Ibrahim M. Dabayebeh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRating of perceived exertionIntraocular pressureAerobic exerciseGlaucomaPhysical therapyIntensity (physics)Blood pressureExercise intensityOphthalmologyHeart rateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRCIS: High intensity aerobic exercise significantly reduced intraocular pressure in healthy young male adults. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine how aerobic exercise at various intensities affects intraocular pressure (IOP) in young adults. DESIGN: A repeated measures design was adopted. PARTICIPANTS: A group of 20 volunteers (mean age: 21.24±1.73 y) took part in this study. METHODS: IOP was measured with a tonometer (iCare TA01i, Icare Finland, Finland). Subjects completed 4 cycle ergometer sessions. During the first session, power was increased by 60 W every 3 minutes until exhaustion, corresponding to peak power. For the 3 following tests, each lasting 25 minutes, subjects exercised at intensities of 50%, 70%, and 85% of peak power, respectively, and measurements were taken every 5 minutes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: IOP, as determined using a tonometer, was the primary measure. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction ( P <0.05) in IOP of both eyes during the 25 minutes high-intensity (85%) exercise test. There were also significant interactions between exercise durations and intensities. During high-intensity exercise, IOP, blood pressure, blood lactate, and the rating of perceived exertion were significantly related ( P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These data show a significant reduction in IOP at high-intensity aerobic exercise, which may have implications for the management of ocular health.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207