MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Ischemic Preconditioning on Neural and Hemodynamic Responses to Muscle Metaboreflex Activation

2016· article· en· W4389024381 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anthony V. Incognito, Connor J. Doherty, Jordan Lee, Philip J. Millar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph-HumberUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMicroneurographyCardiologyIsometric exerciseBlood pressureHeart rateAnesthesiaInternal medicineStroke volumeHemodynamicsCuffBaroreflexSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemic preconditioning (IPC), the exposure to brief intermittent periods of circulatory occlusion, has been demonstrated to reduce submaximal lactate accumulation and improve exercise performance. Lactic acid is a potent stimulator of the muscle metaboreflex, which results in increased efferent sympathetic outflow to skeletal muscle. We tested the hypothesis that IPC would attenuate the neural (muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA)) and hemodynamic response to activation of the muscle metaboreflex during post‐exercise circulatory occlusion (PECO). In a randomized‐controlled design, 17 healthy young (24±3 yrs), normotensive (107±7/64±5 mmHg) men were allocated to IPC (n=10) or sham‐IPC (n=7) treatment groups. IPC and sham‐IPC treatments consisted of 3 cycles of 5 min cuff inflation at 200 mmHg or 20 mmHg, respectively, each followed by a 5 min cuff deflation. Continuous measurements of MSNA (microneurography), blood pressure, heart rate, stroke volume, cardiac output and total peripheral resistance were collected at rest and during 2 min of isometric handgrip (IHG) at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction followed by 3 min of PECO, before and after an acute bout of IPC or sham‐IPC. Compared to baseline, MSNA burst frequency increased during IHG and PECO (both p<0.01) but was unchanged following IPC (IHG Δ9±10 vs. Δ10±7; PECO Δ7±11 vs. Δ8±7 bursts/min) or sham‐IPC (IHG: Δ5±2 vs. Δ5±3; PECO: Δ5±2 vs. Δ3±6 bursts/min). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were increased during IHG and PECO (both p<0.01) but unchanged following IPC (IHG Δ23±13/17±9 vs. Δ21±10/16±7; PECO Δ19±14/11±7 vs. Δ18±15/11±8 mmHg) or sham‐IPC (IHG: Δ15±8/12±6 vs. Δ16±5/11±4; PECO Δ11±7/8±5 vs. Δ10±6/5±4 mmHg). Heart rate was increased during IHG (p<0.01) but not PECO and unchanged following IPC (IHG Δ18±11 vs. Δ19±12; PECO Δ5±7 vs. Δ6±8 bpm) or sham‐IPC (IHG: Δ15±9 vs. Δ13±8; PECO: Δ3±5 vs. Δ0±5 bursts/min). Similarly, stroke volume, cardiac output, and total peripheral resistance responses were unchanged by IPC or sham‐IPC (p>0.05). These findings suggest that IPC is not capable of modulating the efferent sympathetic or hemodynamic responses during exercise or muscle metaboreflex activation. The mechanisms responsible for improvements in exercise capacity and time‐trial performance following IPC require further investigation but are unlikely neurogenic. Support or Funding Information Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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