Effect of acute high-intensity interval exercise on a mouse model of doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) may potentiate or attenuate the cardiotoxic effect of chemotherapy agents such as doxorubicin (DOX) when performed shortly after treatment. The study aimed to investigate the effect of acute HIIE on cardiac function and structure performed either 1, 2 or 3 days after DOX injection in an animal model. METHODS: Female C57bl/6 mice (n = 28), 70 days old, received a bolus 20 mg/kg intravenous tail vein DOX injection. Three exercise groups performed 1 HIIE session (16 sets of 1 min at 85-90% of peak running speed) at 1 (n = 7), 2 (n = 7), and 3 days (n = 8) following the DOX injection. A sedentary (SED) group of mice (n = 6) did not exercise. Animals underwent echocardiography under light anesthesia (isoflurane 0.5-1%) before and 7 days after the DOX injection. Animals were sacrificed on day 9 and hearts were collected for morphometric and histological analysis. RESULTS: Animals exercising on day 3 had the smallest pre-post reduction in left ventricular fractional shortening (LVFS) (MΔ= -1.7 ± 3.3; p = 0.406) and the SED group had the largest reduction (MΔ=-6.8 ± 7.5; p = 0.009). After reclassification of animals according to their exercise compliance (performing > 8/16 of high-intensity bouts), LVFS in compliant mice was unchanged over time (LVFS MΔ= -1.3 ± 5.6; p = 0.396) while non-compliant animals had a LVFS reduction similar to sedentary animals. There were no significant differences in myocardial histology between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot murine study, one single HIIE session did not exacerbate acute doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity. The timing of the HIIE session following DOX injection and the level of compliance to exercise could influence the negative impact of DOX on cardiac function.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".