Ergogenic effects of spinal cord stimulation on exercise performance following spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Importance: Cervical or upper-thoracic spinal cord injury (SCI, ≥T6) often leads to low resting blood pressure and impaired cardiovascular responses to acute exercise due to disrupted supraspinal sympathetic drive. Epidural (invasive, ESCS) and transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (non-invasive, TSCS) have been used to target sympathetic circuits and modulate cardiovascular responses, yet their impact on submaximal upper-body exercise performance in individuals with SCI is unknown. Objective To compare the effects of cardiovascular-optimised ESCS and TSCS versus sham ESCS and TSCS on modulating cardiovascular responses and improving submaximal upper-body exercise performance in individuals with SCI. Design: Double-blinded, randomised comparison trial. Setting: Research center. Participants: Seven males with a chronic, motor-complete SCI between C6-T4, underwent a mapping session to identify cardiovascular responses to spinal cord stimulation. Subsequently, four participants (two ESCS and two TSCS) completed submaximal exercise testing. Exposures: Stimulation parameters (waveform, frequency, intensity, epidural electrode array configuration, specific transcutaneous electrode locations in the lumbosacral region) were optimized to elevate cardiovascular responses (CV-SCS). A sham condition (SHAM-SCS) served as a comparison. Participants performed arm-crank exercise to fatigue at a fixed workload corresponding to above ventilatory threshold, on separate days, with CV-SCS or SHAM-SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to fatigue during submaximal exercise. Heart rate and gas exchange variables were recorded throughout exercise and used to calculate oxygen pulse (a surrogate for stroke volume, SV). Blood pressure (BP) was monitored before exercise (pre-post applying stimulation). Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded every 5-min. Results CV-SCS increased resting BP, left ventricular cardiac contractility and total peripheral resistance. CV-SCS increased time to fatigue with ESCS and TSCS, relative to SHAM-SCS. Relative to baseline, change in systolic BP at rest was greater with CV-SCS versus SHAM-SCS. Peak oxygen pulse during exercise was greater with CV-SCS relative to SHAM-SCS. Furthermore, RPE tended to be lower with CV-SCS than SHAM-SCS during exercise. Conclusions and Relevance: Comparable improvements in time to fatigue with ESCS and TSCS suggest that both approaches could be promising ergogenic aids to support exercise performance or rehabilitation, along with reducing fatigue during activities of daily living in individuals with SCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".