Acute high-intensity exercise enhances T cell proliferation compared to moderate-intensity exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional belief is that high-intensity (HI) exercise inhibits immune function; however, recent work challenges this position. The purpose of this was to quantify changes in T cell proliferative capacity following either a HI or moderate-intensity (MI) exercise. Sixteen males were randomly selected to a HI or MI exercise group. Blood was obtained baseline and immediately, 1, 4, and 6 h post-exercise for analyses of CD3+ T cell proliferation (co-stimulation via phytohaemagglutinin or CD3 + CD28). The proliferative response increased in T cells in the HI group and remained significantly elevated up to 6 h post-exercise in both co-stimulation conditions. In contrast, the MI group saw no change proliferative ability following exercise. Analyses of serum stress hormones, and immunomodulatory cytokines failed to reveal any correlated variations that could clarify the T cell findings. We suggest the increase in proliferative capacity following HI exercise is indicative of an exercise-induced activation that provides for enhanced functional responses to stimuli. Moreover, this study shows that HI exercise increases T cell processes, effectively priming them for activation in response to stimuli. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06638684).
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".