Adrenergic mechanisms do not contribute to age-related decreases in calf venous compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limb venous compliance decreases with advancing age, even in healthy humans. To test the hypothesis that adrenergic mechanisms contribute to age-associated reductions in limb venous compliance, we measured calf venous compliance before and during acute systemic α- and β-adrenergic blockade in eight young (27 ± 1 yr old, mean ± SE) and eight older healthy men (67 ± 2 yr old). Calf venous compliance was determined in supine subjects by inflating a thigh-collecting cuff to 60 mmHg for 8 min and then decreasing it (1 mmHg/s) to 0 mmHg while calf volume was indexed with a strain gauge. The slope (·10⁻³) of the pressure-compliance relation (compliance= β₁ + 2·β₂·cuff pressure), which is the first derivative of the quadratic pressure-volume relation [(Δlimb volume) = β₀+ β₁·(cuff pressure) + β₂·(cuff pressure)²] during reductions in cuff pressure, was used to quantify calf venous compliance. Calf venous compliance was ∼30% lower (P < 0.01) in older compared with young men before adrenergic blockade. In response to adrenergic blockade calf venous compliance did not increase in young (-2.62 ± 0.14 and -2.29 ± 0.18 ml·dl⁻¹·mmHg⁻¹, before and during blockade, respectively) or older men (-1.78 ± 0.27 and -1.68 ± 0.21 ml·dl⁻¹ ·mmHg⁻¹). Moreover, during adrenergic blockade differences in calf venous compliance between young and older men observed before adrenergic blockade persisted. Collectively, these data strongly suggest that adrenergic mechanisms neither directly restrain calf venous compliance in young or older men nor do they contribute to age-associated reductions in calf venous compliance in healthy men.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".