Increased Central Arterial Stiffness Explains Baroreflex Dysfunction in Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), orthostatic hypotension and intolerance commonly ensue. The cardiovagal baroreflex plays an important role in the acute regulation of blood pressure (BP) and is associated with the onset of presyncope. The cardiovagal baroreflex is dysfunctional after SCI; however, this may be influenced by either increased stiffening of the arteries containing the stretch-receptors (which has been shown in SCI) or a more downstream neural mechanism (i.e., solitary nucleus, sinoatrial node). Identifying where along this pathway baroreflex dysfunction occurs may highlight a potential therapeutic target. This study examined the relationship between spontaneous cardiovagal baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) and common carotid artery (CCA) stiffness in those with high level SCI before and after midodrine (alpha1-agonist) administration, as well as in able-bodied controls, to evaluate: (1) the role arterial stiffening plays mediating baroreflex function after SCI and (2) the effect of normalizing BP on these parameters. Three to five min recordings of beat-by-beat BP and heart rate, as well as 30 sec duration recordings of CCA diameter were used for analysis. All participants were tested supine and during upright-tilt. Arterial stiffness (β-stiffness index) was elevated in those with SCI when upright (+12%; p<0.05). Further, β-stiffness index was negatively related to reduced BRS in those with SCI when upright (R2=0.55; p<0.05), but not in able-bodied persons. Normalizing BP did not improve BRS or CCA stiffness. This study clearly shows that reduced BRS is closely related to increased arterial stiffness in the population with 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".