MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400597376 · doi:10.14814/phy2.16144

The influence of oral contraceptives on the exercise pressor reflex in the upper and lower body

2024· article· en· W4400597376 on OpenAlexafffund
Tania J. Pereira, Heather Edgell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineHeart rateReflexAnesthesiaPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous research has demonstrated that oral contraceptive (OC) users have enhanced cardiorespiratory responses to arm metaboreflex activation (i.e., postexercise circulatory occlusion, PECO) and attenuated pressor responses to leg passive movement (PM) compared to non‐OC users (NOC). We investigated the cardiorespiratory responses to arm or leg metaboreflex and mechanoreflex activation in 32 women (OC, n = 16; NOC, n = 16) performing four trials: 40% handgrip or 80% plantarflexion followed by PECO and arm or leg PM. OC and NOC increased mean arterial pressure (MAP) similarly during handgrip, plantarflexion and arm/leg PECO compared to baseline. Despite increased ventilation (V E ) during exercise, none of the women exhibited higher V E during arm or leg PECO. OC and NOC similarly increased MAP and V E during arm or leg PM compared to baseline. Therefore, OC and NOC were similar across pressor and ventilatory responses to arm or leg metaboreflex and mechanoreflex activation. However, some differences due to OC may have been masked by disparities in muscle strength. Since women increase V E during exercise, we suggest that while women do not display a ventilatory response to metaboreflex activation (perhaps due to not reaching a theoretical metabolite threshold to stimulate V E ), the mechanoreflex may drive V E during exercise in women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological ReportsSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207