MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974421782 · doi:10.1007/s00421-013-2667-y

Blood pressure regulation IX: cerebral autoregulation under blood pressure challenges

2013· review· en· W1974421782 on OpenAlexafffund
Yu‐Chieh Tzeng, Philip N. Ainslie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCerebral autoregulationCerebral perfusion pressureCerebral blood flowAutoregulationCerebral circulationContext (archaeology)MedicineBlood pressureHemodynamicsNeuroscienceVasomotorCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations229
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207