MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Muscle Sympathetic Nerve Responses to Passive and Active One‐legged Cycling: Insight into the Contributions of Central Command

2017· article· en· W4389006853 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Connor J. Doherty, Anthony V. Incognito, Karambir Notay, Matthew Burns, Massimo Nardone, Jeremy D. Seed, Philip J. Millar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph-HumberUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMicroneurographyCyclingHeart rateMedicineStroke volumeCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineAnesthesiaBaroreflex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior studies using neuromuscular blockade to increase perception of effort during mild or moderate intensity handgrip exercise have demonstrated that activation of higher brain regions, termed central command, contribute importantly to cardiac parasympathetic withdrawal but have limited influence on muscle sympathetic activation. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the contribution of central command to the control of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) during dynamic one‐legged cycling. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), stroke volume, and MSNA (contralateral leg microneurography) were measured in 18 healthy participants (9 men; 22±3 yr of age) at baseline and during two minutes of upright passive cycling movement and active unloaded cycling, each separated by 10 minutes of rest. The increases in HR were greater during the first (Δ3±3 vs. Δ11±7 bpm, p<0.0001) and second (Δ3±4 vs. Δ9±6 bpm, p<0.0001) minute, and MAP during the second minute (Δ4±3 vs. Δ7±5 mmHg, p<0.01), of active unloaded cycling compared to passive cycling movement. Stroke volume increased over time (p<0.001) but was not different between passive and active unloaded cycling (p>0.05). MSNA burst frequency decreased similarly during the first (Δ−4±5 vs. Δ−3±5 bursts/min, p>0.05) and second (Δ−6±4 vs. Δ−4±4 bursts/min, p>0.05) minute of passive and active unloaded cycling. In contrast, total MSNA demonstrated attenuated reductions during the first (Δ−3.2±3.0 vs. Δ−0.6±3.3 arbitrary units/min, p<0.05 [Δ−18±16% vs. Δ0±31%, p<0.05]) and second (Δ−4.5±3.3 vs. Δ−1.5±3.5 arbitrary units/min, p<0.01 [Δ−28±17% vs. Δ−11±24%, p<0.05]) minute of active unloaded cycling. These results support the concept that muscle sympathetic burst occurrence and strength can be regulated independently and suggest that during dynamic leg exercise central command primarily alters vasoconstrictor outflow through modulations in muscle sympathetic burst strength. Support or Funding Information This research was supported by a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Discovery Grant (P.J.M), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (P.J.M.), and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fredrick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship (A.V.I.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207