MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influence of dynamic cerebral autoregulation on presyncope in endurance athletes (1184.5)

2014· article· en· W1502770931 on OpenAlexaffabout
Myriam Paquette, Olivier Blanc, Alexandra Gaudreau, Pascale‐Renée Moreau, Andrée‐Anne Clément, Guy Thibault, Patrice Brassard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresyncopeMedicineCerebral autoregulationAnesthesiaCerebral blood flowHeart rateCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineAutoregulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) on presyncope symptoms (PS) is controversial in endurance athletes. We examined the influence of dCA during transient hypotension on PS in 11 male athletes using 1) the thigh‐cuff method (rate of regulation [RoR]), and 2) the relative reduction in cerebrovascular conductance index (CVCi) during transient hypotension induced by squat‐stand maneuvers at different frequencies (0.025, 0.05 and 0.1 Hz). Prevalence of PS was assessed using a 20‐min glyceryl trinitrate‐provoked head‐up tilt. Correlations were assessed between dCA metrics. Subjects were then divided into two groups according to presence (n=6; PS group) or absence (n=5; non‐PS group) of PS. There were no correlations between dCA metrics and time to PS. dCA metrics were unrelated, except CVCi response to hypotension at 0.05 Hz and 0.1 Hz (B=0.846, p=0.008). ROR was comparable between PS and non‐PS groups. The CVCi response to hypotension was attenuated in the PS group vs. non‐PS group (0.05 Hz: 1.51 ± 0.31 vs. 2.47 ± 0.27 %/%; 0.1 Hz: 1.35 ± 0.36 vs. 2.32 ± 0.41 %/%, all p<0.05). These results suggest that although CVCi was better adapted to coping with transient hypotension in athletes with PS vs. those without PS, this was unrelated to PS. Thus, metrics of dCA assessing the cerebral blood flow response to hypotension cannot be used to predict PS risk in endurance athletes. Grant Funding Source : Supported by a research contract from the Ministère de l'Éductation, du Loisir et du Sport (Québec)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→