Delayed vasoconstrictor response to venous pooling in the calf is associated with high orthostatic tolerance to LBNP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central blood volume loss to venous pooling in the lower extremities and vasoconstrictor response are commonly viewed as key factors to distinguish between individuals with high and low tolerance to orthostatic stress. In this study, we analyzed calf vasoconstriction as a function of venous pooling during simulated orthostatic stress. We hypothesized that high orthostatic tolerance (OT) would be associated with greater vasoconstrictor responses to venous pooling compared with low OT. Nineteen participants underwent continuous stepped lower body negative pressure at -10, -20, -30, -40, -50, and -60 mmHg each for 5 min or until exhibiting signs of presyncope. Ten participants completed the lower body negative pressure procedure without presyncope and were categorized with high OT; the remaining nine were categorized as having low OT. Near-infrared spectroscopy measurements of vasoconstriction (Hachiya T, Blaber A, Saito M. Acta Physiologica 193: 117-127, 2008) in calf muscles, along with heart rate (HR) responses for each participant, were evaluated in relation to calf blood volume, estimated by plethysmography. The slopes of this relationship between vasoconstriction and blood volume were not different between the high- and low-tolerance groups. However, the onset of vasoconstriction in the high-tolerance group was delayed. Greater HR increments in the low-tolerance group were also observed as a function of lower limb blood pooling. The delayed vasoconstriction and slower HR increments in the high-tolerance group to similar venous pooling in the low group may suggest a greater vascular reserve and possible delayed reduction in venous return.
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 | 0.001 | 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".