MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reduced carotid artery blood flow of spontaneously hypertensive rats is unaffected by aging from 20 weeks (young adulthood) to 65 weeks (upper middle age) (LB690)

2014· article· en· W1589516732 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steven Denniss, Christopher Smith, James W. E. Rush

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressurePulse pressureMedicineDiastoleInternal medicineBlood flowCardiologyHeart rateCommon carotid arteryArteryHemodynamicsPulse (music)Carotid arteriesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to quantify blood flow (using a perivascular flowprobe) and pressure (using a catheter‐tip transducer) in the common carotid artery (CCA) of anesthetized young adult (~20 week old) and upper middle aged (~65 week old) Wistar Kyoto rats (WKY) and Spontaneously Hypertensive rats (SHR). In young adult SHR vs. WKY, mean (172±10 vs. 82±2 mmHg), systolic (198±13 vs. 92±4), diastolic (151±9 vs. 72±5), and pulse pressure (48±5 vs. 20±2), and heart rate (371±12 vs. 277±19 beats/min), were each elevated (p<0.01). In SHR, aging had no effect on these pressure parameters, or heart rate; whereas, in WKY, aging was associated with a significant increase in pulse pressure (31±1 mmHg; p=0.04) but no other pressure parameter. Mean (4.94±0.29 vs. 3.80±0.54 ml/min), maximum systolic (11.58±1.08 vs. 19.00±2.18), and minimum diastolic blood flow (0.62±0.73 vs. 1.90±0.34) were each reduced in young adult SHR vs. WKY (p<0.05), while flow pulsatility was no different (3.23±0.73 vs. 3.43±0.44). Aging had no effect on these flow parameters in either SHR or WKY. Together, these data demonstrate that CCA blood flow is >20% reduced in young adult SHR, and that this reduction is neither exacerbated nor attenuated at upper middle age. Given the important contribution of the internal branches of the CCAs to the total perfusion of the brain, these findings may be of pathophysiological and clinical relevance. Grant Funding Source : Supported by NSERC Canada

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 topicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention→French-language works237,207→