Effects of Exercise Interventions on Cardiac Structure, Function, and Mechanics in Individuals with Chronic Motor-Complete Spinal Cord Injury: An Exploratory Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) at or above T6 face increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks due to altered autonomic control and physical inactivity. Arm cycle ergometry training (ACET) or body weight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT) may improve cardiovascular health, but the impact on cardiac structure and function remains unclear. Objectives: The study aimed to compare the impact of two exercise interventions on cardiac measures in individuals with chronic SCI. Methods: Participants with motor-complete SCI (C4-T6, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS] grade A or B) were randomly assigned to perform 72 ACET or BWSTT sessions. Left ventricular (LV) echocardiography assessments were performed pre and post training. Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance and effect sizes (Cohen's d ). Results: Twelve participants underwent analysis (6 per group), revealing significant Group (ACET, BWSTT) x Time (pre, post) interactions for global circumferential systolic and diastolic strain rate (SR) and early diastolic filling velocity ( P ≤ .018; Cohen's d > .8/ -.8). Within-group post hoc testing demonstrated a significant decrease in global circumferential systolic SR ( P < .001, d = −4.00) and a significant increase in global circumferential diastolic SR ( P = .025, d = 2.48) following ACET, with no significant differences following BWSTT. Although there were no statistically significant within-group post hoc changes ( P > .58) for diastolic filling, there was a large effect size favoring ACET ( d = 1.11). Conclusion: This exploratory study suggests that ACET alters LV mechanics and potentially diastolic function in a cohort of individuals with chronic, cervical or upper thoracic, motor-complete SCI. Conversely, no significant changes were observed following BWSTT. These findings indicate that ACET can improve cardiac function relative to BWSTT in individuals with SCI, though further studies are warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".