MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Magnitude of FMD is Determined by the Area Under the Curve of the Reactive Hyperemia

2006· article· en· W1982110614 on OpenAlexaff
Kyra E. Pyke, Roopan Gill, John Hartnett, Derrek Krzak, Michael E. Tschakovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachial arteryReactive hyperemiaMedicineCuffOcclusionBlood flowCardiologyUltrasoundShear rateInternal medicineAnesthesiaNuclear medicineSurgeryBlood pressureMaterials scienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reactive hyperemia (RH) test commonly used to assess flow mediated dilation (FMD) in human conduit arteries creates a large, transient shear stimulus. PURPOSE: To identify the relative importance of the peak vs. the duration of shear rate in determining the peak FMD response. METHODS: Brachial artery (BA) blood flow velocity was measured with Doppler ultrasound and echo ultrasound BA images were analyzed with automated edge detection software (shear rate = velocity/diameter). 1) Duration manipulation experiment (DME) - 10 healthy males underwent six RH trials with different hyperemic durations (10s–2 min). The duration of hyperemia was manipulated by re-inflating the occlusion cuff after 10s, 20s, 30s, 40s, or 50s. 2) Peak manipulation experiment (PME) - 8 healthy males underwent three RH trials. Three peak shear rate magnitudes (large (L), medium (M) and small (S)) were created by applying BA compression upon cuff release. The post-peak area under the curve (AUC) of shear rate was also controlled with arterial compression. RESULTS: DME - Peak shear rate (AUC in 1st 9s post cuff release) was not different between trials (P = 0.309). Re-inflation of the occlusion cuff at times indicated resulted in the remaining AUC being significantly different between trials (10 s −2025.37 ±504.21; 20 s −3393.54±857.03; 30s-4329.30±1198.47; 40s–4784.20±1345.00; 50s–5215.83±1466.63 2min −7124.39±2160.67 p<0.001). The respective peak % changes in diameter were: 10s-2.67±1.34; 20s-6.21±1.95; 30s-7.89±2.95; 40s-8.3±3.21; 50s-7.91±3.20; 2min-9.34±4.10, with 10 and 20 s being significantly less than 2min (p<0.001). PME - Peak shear rate (AUC in 1st 9s post cuff release) was significantly different between trials (L- 998.04±305.16, M-700.66±225.89, S-487.48±1 67.55 p<0.001). The AUC of the post-peak shear rate was not significantly different between trials (P = 0.695). The peak % change in diameter was not significantly different between trials (L-6.99±2.72%, M-7.56±2.6%, S-6.87±1.99%, P = 0.437). CONCLUSIONS: Manipulation of the duration of the shear rate had an impact on the peak FMD response while independent manipulation of peak shear rate did not. We conclude that the shear rate AUC following the peak is a critical determinant of the peak FMD response and needs to be accounted for in quantifying the stimulus for FMD. Supported by ACSM Doctoral Research Grant, NSERC, CFI New Opportunities Fund

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207