English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Adaptation to military operational stress is a complex physiological response that calls upon the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis and immune system, to create a delicate balance between anabolism and catabolism and meet the demands of an ever‐changing environment. As such, resilience, the ability to withstand and overcome the negative impact of stress on military performance, is likely grounded in an appropriate biological adaptation to encountered stressors. Neuroendocrine [i.e. cortisol, epinephrine (EPI), norepinephrine (NE), neuropeptide‐Y (NPY), and brain derived neurotropic factor (BDNF)], inflammatory [i.e. interleukin 6 (IL‐6), IL‐1β, IL‐4, IL‐10 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)‐α], as well as growth and anabolic [i.e. insulin‐like growth factor‐I (IGF‐I), testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)] biomarkers independently and interactively function in stress adaptations that are associated with a soldier's physical and psychological performance. In this narrative review, we detail biomarkers across neuroendocrine, inflammatory, and growth stimulating domains to better elucidate the biological basis of a resilient soldier. The findings from the reviewed studies indicate that military readiness and resiliency may be enhanced through better homeostatic control, better regulated inflammatory responses, and balanced anabolic/catabolic processes. It is unlikely that one class of biomarkers is better for assessing physiological resilience. Therefore, a biomarker panel that can account for appropriate balance across these domains may be superior in developing monitoring frameworks. Real‐time physiological monitoring to assess biomarkers associated with resilience will be possible pending more sophisticated technologies and provide a field‐expedient application for early identification and intervention of at‐risk soldiers to improve military resiliency.

Circulating biomarkers associated with performance and resilience during military operational stress