Carotid chemoreceptor inhibition improves exercise tolerance in participants with elevated carotid chemosensitivity: A secondary analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Chronic heart failure (CHF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are characterized by exaggerated carotid chemoreceptor (CC) sensitivity and exercise intolerance. We tested the hypothesis that participants with elevated CC sensitivity would have the greatest improvement in exercise tolerance with CC inhibition, secondary to increased vascular conductance, and lower ventilatory requirements, dyspnea and leg discomfort. METHODS: Data from healthy controls, and patients with CHF or COPD were included in this secondary analysis of results from 2 randomized placebo-controlled double-blind crossover trials. Assessments included pulmonary function, incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test, and basal CC sensitivity assessment. High CC sensitivity was defined as either a stepwise hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR) or transient HVR greater than one SD above the mean in healthy controls. Participants received 2 μg/kg/min dopamine or placebo infusions (randomized) during 2 separate constant work-rate exercise tests to examine exercise endurance time (EET) and cardiopulmonary responses. RESULTS: = 0.024). Those with improved vascular conductance and leg discomfort had the greatest improvements in EET (p = 0.042 and p = 0.021, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CC inhibition with dopamine in participants with high HVR was associated with improvement in EET. These findings suggest that high HVR is related to exercise limitation, and that improvement in EET is associated with a CC-mediated increase in vascular conductance and leg discomfort.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".