Blood pressure regulation IX: cerebral autoregulation under blood pressure challenges
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerebral autoregulation (CA) is integral to the delicate process of maintaining stable cerebral perfusion and brain tissue oxygenation against changes in arterial blood pressure. The last four decades has seen dramatic advances in understanding CA physiology, and the role that CA might play in the causation and progression of disease processes that affect the cerebral circulation such as stroke. However, the translation of these basic scientific advances into clinical practice has been limited by the maintenance of old constructs and because there are persistent gaps in our understanding of how this vital vascular mechanism should be quantified. In this review, we re-evaluate relevant studies that challenge established paradigms about how the cerebral perfusion pressure and blood flow are related. In the context of blood pressure being a major haemodynamic challenge to the cerebral circulation, we conclude that: (1) the physiological properties of CA remain inconclusive, (2) many extant methods for CA characterisation are based on simplistic assumptions that can give rise to misleading interpretations, and (3) robust evaluation of CA requires thorough consideration not only of active vasomotor function, but also the unique properties of the intracranial environment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it