Repeatability of popliteal blood flow and lower limb vascular conductance at rest and exercise during body tilt using Doppler ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the data repeatability for popliteal blood flow velocity (PBV), popliteal arterial diameter (AD(pop)), popliteal blood flow (PBF) and lower limb vascular conductance (VC) at rest and exercise in three body positions, two work rates and two inspired oxygen fractions. Fifteen, eleven and ten healthy volunteers participated in the three phases of the studies. Resting protocols were performed in horizontal (HOR), 35° head-down tilt (HDT) and 45° head-up tilt (HUT) for 5 min in each body position. Participants also exercised at lower and higher power outputs (repeated plantar flexion contractions at 20% and 30% maximal voluntary contraction, respectively) in HOR, HDT and HUT and in normoxia (21%O2) and hypoxia (14%O2) with the same work rates and body positions. PBV and AD(pop) were measured by ultrasound to determine PBF, and VC was estimated by dividing PBF by muscle perfusion pressure (MPP). PBV, AD(pop), PBF and VC were not different, demonstrated good agreement and consistency between the two days of testing during both rest and exercise conditions regardless of body position. Therefore, these data support the utilization of Doppler and echo Doppler ultrasound as a reproducible method to measure PBV and AD(pop) and consequently estimate PBF and VC responses in such conditions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".