Cerebral haemodynamic responses to inspiratory muscle work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatiguing inspiratory work has been shown to evoke a sympathetically mediated reflex that has systemic cardiovascular consequences, including increases in heart rate and blood pressure and a decrease in resting limb vascular conductance. Moreover, the response to this reflex appears to be attenuated in females compared with males. It remains to be seen whether this respiratory muscle metaboreflex also exerts an effect on cerebral blood flow. Cerebral blood flow is tightly regulated to maintain homeostasis and critical function. Therefore, it stands to reason that cerebrovascular haemodynamics would not be compromised through this respiratory muscle metaboreflex. We hypothesized that fatiguing inspiratory work would reduce resting limb conductance, but cerebral blood flow would be minimally impaired. Females (34 ± 10 years old, n = 12) and males (31 ± 8 years old, n = 12) performed a 5 min, high-intensity bout of inspiratory pressure threshold loading (IPTL) designed to evoke the respiratory muscle metaboreflex. In response to IPTL, mean arterial pressure increased in both males and females (p < 0.001), and limb vascular conductance decreased to a greater degree in males than in females (p = 0.005). The cerebrovascular conductance index was higher in females (p = 0.007) but not affected by IPTL (p = 0.417). Our findings suggest that cerebral blood flow is spared from the redistribution of blood flow in response to fatiguing inspiratory work and that this protection is true in both males and females.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".