MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does Priming Exercise Enhance Sympatholysis?

2024· article· en· W4402662752 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darren S. DeLorey, Breanne S. Collison

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPriming (agriculture)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineNeurosciencePsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Priming exercise has been shown to enhance skeletal muscle blood flow during subsequent exercise. However, the mechanism responsible for the enhanced skeletal muscle blood flow has not been elucidated. PURPOSE: To investigate the hypothesis that heavy-intensity priming exercise would blunt sympathetic vasoconstrictor responsiveness and enhance contraction-mediated inhibition of sympathetic vasoconstriction (sympatholysis). METHODS: Young females (n = 13, 21 ± 3 years) and males (n = 8; 23 ± 2 years) performed alternate-leg knee-extension exercise where work was increased in a stepwise manner from passive exercise to moderate-intensity (30% peak power output, PPO, 7 min) preceded by either no priming exercise (MOD 1), or heavy-intensity (60% PPO, 6 min) priming exercise (MOD 2). A cold pressor test (CPT was performed at rest and during MOD 1 and MOD 2. Beat-by-beat blood pressure was measured via Finometer, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was calculated. Leg blood flow (LBF) was measured using Doppler ultrasound, and femoral vascular conductance (FVC) was calculated as FVC = LBF⋅MAP-1. Sympathetic vasoconstrictor responsiveness was defined as the percent decrease in FVC (%αFVC) in response to the CPT. Sympatholysis was defined as the difference between the %αFVC response to the CPT at rest and during exercise. RESULTS: Sympathetic vasoconstrictor responsiveness at rest was not different (p > 0.05) between females (-45.1 ± 11.0%) and males (-40.5 ± 11.8%). During exercise, sympathetic vasoconstrictor responsiveness was blunted (p < 0.05) in both females and males. However, sympatholysis was greater (p < 0.05) in females compared with males during MOD 1 (Females: 23.5 ± 9.6, Males: 13.0 ± 7.6) and MOD 2 (Females: 23.2 ± 12.9, Males: 13.4 ± 6.6). Heavy-intensity priming exercise did not alter (p > 0.05) sympathetic vasoconstrictor responsiveness in females (MOD 1: -21.6 ± 7.7%; MOD 2: -21.9 ± 13.0%) or males (MOD 1: -27.5 ± 12.0%; MOD 2: -27.0 ± 11.1%). Sympatholysis was also unaffected (p > 0.05) by heavy-intensity priming exercise in females (MOD 1: 23.5 ± 9.6; MOD 2: 26.7 ± 9.0) and males (MOD 1: 13.0 ± 7.6; MOD 2: 13.4 ± 6.5). CONCLUSION: Heavy-intensity priming exercise did not blunt sympathetic vasoconstrictor responsiveness or enhance functional sympatholysis during subsequent moderate-intensity exercise. NSERC Canada

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207