Combined Head‐Up Tilt and Lower Body Negative Pressure as an Experimental Model of Orthostatic Syncope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The combination of head-up tilt and incremental lower body negative pressure has shown promise in the diagnosis of orthostatic hypotension and neurocardiogenic syncope, although prior methodologies limited conclusions as to the reproducibility of the test. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and reproducibility of a protocol combining tilt and stages of incremental lower body negative pressure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ten volunteers (6 men and 4 women; mean age 21 +/- 1 years) participated in the study, which was composed of three sessions, 1 month apart, each consisting of 60 degrees tilt followed by lower body suction in incremental levels of -10 mmHg for 5 minutes at each level. The primary outcome variable was the time to presyncope. Secondary variables were the levels of heart rate, blood pressure, cerebral blood flow, and end-tidal CO2 at each level of the test. Presyncope could be achieved in all subjects. The mean times to presyncope were 24.6 +/- 1.4 minutes, 26.2 +/- 1.8 minutes, and 31.8 +/- 1.6 minutes and were not different across tests (P = 0.3). Intrasubject variability was assessed by determining the mean average deviation from the mean, which was 3.2 +/- 2.0 minutes. Changes in heart rate, blood pressure, end-tidal CO2, and cerebral blood flow were consistent with repeat testing. CONCLUSION: Lower body negative pressure combined with head-up tilt in a staged protocol can safely and reliably induce presyncope in all normal subjects tested. The test is a potent and reproducible investigational tool for inducing hypotension and transient cerebral hypoperfusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".