The influence of oral contraceptives on the exercise pressor reflex in the upper and lower body
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (VE) during exercise, none of the women exhibited higher VE during arm or leg PECO. OC and NOC similarly increased MAP and VE 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 VE 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 VE), the mechanoreflex may drive VE 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".