MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex differences in sympathetic neurovascular transduction of action potential discharge during fatiguing handgrip exercise in young adults

2023· article· en· W4378649136 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew W. D’Souza, Kazumasa Manabe, Sarah L. Hissen, Geoff B. Coombs, Takuro Washio, Meghan C. Annis, Belinda Sanchez, Qi Fu, J. Kevin Shoemaker

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroneurographyMedicineInternal medicineBlood pressureVasodilationVasoconstrictionEndocrinologyIsometric exerciseCardiologyHeart rateBaroreflex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Males, and females using oral contraception (OC), exhibit larger increases in muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) during exercise than naturally menstruating females. Furthermore, sympathetic transduction into blood pressure during exercise is greater in females using OC than naturally menstruating females. Though limb vasoconstriction for a given dose of norepinephrine is blunted in females (via estrogen mediated β-adrenergic vasodilation) compared to males at rest, the impact of sex, menstrual cycle, and OC on MSNA and action potential (AP) discharge, as well as sympathetic neurovascular transduction (sNVT) during exercise remains unknown. We hypothesized that during exercise: 1) males would exhibit the largest increases in MSNA and AP recruitment as well as sNVT, and 2) naturally menstruating females would exhibit less sympathetic reactivity and sNVT compared to females using OC. MSNA, AP discharge (microneurography and a continuous wavelet transform), and leg blood flow (doppler ultrasound) were assessed in 10 naturally menstruating females (25±4 years (mean±SD)), 7 females using OC (26±5 years), and 6 males (YM; 26±5 years) during static handgrip exercise (SHG) to fatigue at 40% of maximal voluntary contraction force. SHG duration was divided into four equal stages. Leg vascular conductance (LVC) was calculated as leg blood flow divided by mean arterial pressure, and sNVT was quantified as the slope of the relationship between changes in (Δ) LVC and MSNA or AP discharge. Females were tested in the mid luteal (ML) and active pill OC phases. Linear mixed-model analyses were used to assess ΔMSNA, AP discharge, and LVC during SHG, whereas sNVT was assessed via one-way ANOVAs. No group differences were observed for ΔMSNA burst frequency ( P=0.937), incidence ( P=0.928), amplitude ( P=0.293) or total activity ( P=0.966) throughout exercise. Similarly, ΔAPs/burst ( P=0.59), ΔClusters/burst ( P=0.393), ΔTotal clusters ( P=0.639) were not different between groups throughout exercise. Conversely, an interaction effect was observed for ΔLVC during exercise ( P=0.004), with ML females tending to have smaller ΔLVC than YM at 25% ( P=0.132), 75% ( P=0.174) and 100% ( P=0.103) of SHG. Thus, sNVT of MSNA burst amplitude (ML: -0.007±0.007, YM: -0.023±0.01 Δml/min/ΔAU; post-hoc P=0.008), total activity (ML: -0.00007±0.00007, YM: -0.0003±0.0001 Δml/min/ΔAU/min-1; post-hoc P=0.002), and total AP clusters (ML: -0.03±0.03, YM: -0.08±0.03 Δml/min/Δclusters; post-hoc P=0.027) was lower in ML females relative to YM. In females using OC, sNVT was not different compared to ML females or YM (all post-hoc P>0.05 ). sNVT of other MSNA/AP indices were not different between groups (all P>0.05). These preliminary data indicate that sNVT of MSNA burst amplitude and total AP clusters is greater in males than naturally menstruating females, and that OC use does not impact AP discharge or sNVT within females during static handgrip exercise. Supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2023 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207