The arterial reservoir pressure increases with aging and is the major determinant of the aortic augmentation index
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The augmentation index predicts cardiovascular mortality and is usually explained as a distally reflected wave adding to the forward wave generated by systole. We propose that the capacitative properties of the aorta (the arterial reservoir) also contribute significantly to the augmentation index and have calculated the contribution of the arterial reservoir, independently of wave reflection, and assessed how these contributions change with aging. In 15 subjects (aged 53 +/- 10 yr), we measured pressure and Doppler velocity simultaneously in the proximal aorta using intra-arterial wires. We calculated the components of augmentation pressure in two ways: 1) into forward and backward (reflected) components by established separation methods, and 2) using an approach that accounts for an additional reservoir component. When the reservoir was ignored, augmentation pressure (22.7 +/- 13.9 mmHg) comprised a small forward wave (peak pressure = 6.5 +/- 9.4 mmHg) and a larger backward wave (peak pressure = 16.2 +/- 7.6 mmHg). After we took account of the reservoir, the contribution to augmentation pressure of the backward wave was reduced by 64% to 5.8 +/- 4.4 mmHg (P < 0.001), forward pressure was negligible, and reservoir pressure was the largest component (peak pressure = 19.8 +/- 9.3 mmHg). With age, reservoir pressure increased progressively (9.9 mmHg/decade, r = 0.69, P < 0.001). In conclusion, the augmentation index is principally determined by aortic reservoir function and other elastic arteries and only to a minor extent by reflected waves. Reservoir function rather than wave reflection changes markedly with aging, which accounts for the age-related changes in the aortic pressure waveform.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it