Effects of exercise on autonomic cardiovascular control in individuals with chronic, motor-complete spinal cord injury: an exploratory randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of 6 months of arm cycle ergometry training (ACET), or body weight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT), on autonomic cardiovascular responses to a laboratory sit-up test (SUT) in individuals with chronic (≥1-year post-injury) spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Tertiary Rehabilitation Centre, Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: Sixteen individuals with motor-complete (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale A-B) SCI between the fourth cervical and sixth thoracic spinal cord segments, aged 39 ± 11 years, were assessed. Participants were randomized to receive 72 sessions of moderate-to-vigorous intensity ACET (n = 8) or passive BWSTT (n = 8). Changes in mean arterial pressure (finger plethysmography), hemodynamics (Modelflow® method), and heart rate/heart rate variability (HR/HRV; electrocardiography) were measured in response to a SUT before and after 6 months of exercise training. Spontaneous cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity (cvBRS) was assessed using the sequence method. RESULTS: Neither ACET nor BWSTT impacted hemodynamic responses to SUT or the incidence of orthostatic hypotension (all P > 0.36). ACET increased HR (P < 0.01, η$_{p}$$^{2}$ = 0.34) and high frequency (HF) power HRV responses (P < 0.01, η$_{p}$$^{2}$ = 0.42) to SUT following 6 months of training while BWSTT did not. Consistent with this, cvBRS improved (P < 0.05, η$_{p}$$^{2}$ = 0.16) only following ACET. Improvements in cvBRS were correlated with both the HR (r = 0.726, P < 0.0001) and HF power (r = -0.484, P < 0.01) responses to SUT. CONCLUSION: Six months of ACET, but not BWSTT, improved cardiovagal baroreflex control of HR but had no effect on BP responses to SUT in individuals with chronic, motor-complete SCI.
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 | 0.003 | 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".