Effects of sex and ageing on the human respiratory muscle metaboreflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intense inspiratory muscle work evokes a sympathetically mediated pressor reflex, termed the respiratory muscle metaboreflex, in which young females demonstrate an attenuated response relative to males. However, the effects of ageing and female sex hormones on the respiratory muscle metaboreflex are unclear. We tested the hypothesis that the pressor response to inspiratory work would be similar between older males and females, and higher relative to their younger counterparts. Healthy, normotensive young (26 ± 3 years) males (YM; n = 10) and females (YF; n = 10), as well as older (64 ± 5 years) males (OM; n = 10) and females (OF; n = 10), performed inspiratory pressure threshold loading (PTL) to task failure. Older adults had a greater mean arterial pressure (MAP) response to PTL than young (P < 0.001). YF had a lower MAP compared to YM (+10 ± 6 vs. +19 ± 15 mmHg, P = 0.026); however, there was no difference observed between OF and OM (+26 ± 11 vs. +27 ± 11 mmHg, P = 0.162). Older adults had a lower heart rate response to PTL than young (P = 0.002). There was no effect of sex between young females and males (+19 ± 9 and +27 ± 11 bpm, P = 0.186) or older females and males (+17 ± 7 and +20 ± 7 bpm, P = 0.753). We conclude the respiratory muscle metaboreflex response is heightened in older adults, and the sex effect between older males and post-menopause females is absent, suggesting an effect of circulating sex hormones. KEY POINTS: The arterial blood pressure response to the respiratory muscle metaboreflex is greater in older males and females. Compared to sex-matched young individuals, there is no sex differences in the blood pressure response between older males and post-menopause females. Our results suggest the differences between males and females in the cardiovascular response to high levels of inspiratory muscle work is abolished with reduced circulating female sex hormones.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".