MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Autonomic Blockade on Heart Rate Variability after Spinal Cord Injury: A Case Series

2010· review· en· W2042860911 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. Cotie, Tim St. Amand, Richard McMillan, Peter Picton, David S. Ditor

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHotel Dieu Shaver Health and Rehabilitation CentreMcMaster UniversityToronto General HospitalBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetoprololHeart rate variabilityBlockadeHeart rateAtropineInternal medicineAnesthesiaCardiologyIsometric exerciseBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of pharmacological cardiac autonomic blockade on heart rate variability (HRV) in individuals with SCI and compare these effects to age, sex, and weight-matched able-bodied controls. Three males (45.8 years) with incomplete tetraplegia and three male (33.0 years) able-bodied controls underwent 10 min of electrocardiogram recordings before and after beta-blockade (metoprolol tartrate) and cholinergic blockade (atropine sulphate), in both the 0 deg−tilt position and during cardiovascular stress (40 deg head-up tilt, cold pressor, and isometric jaw contraction). The cardiac response to such blockade was determined using power spectral analysis. In the three participants with SCI, atropine sulphate was associated with a 99.9, 98.2, and 99.2% reduction in resting high-frequency (HF) power, while metoprolol tartrate was associated with a 72.5, 73.1, and 39.6% decrease in the low-frequency to high-frequency ratio (LF:HF) during cardiovascular stress. Similar changes were experienced by the able-bodied participants. HF power is a valid estimate of cardiac parasympathetic outflow, and cardiac sympathovagal balance contributes to the LF:HF ratio in individuals with SCI. Large-scale studies on the validity of HRV after SCI are warranted, since such measures may gauge autonomic impairment and subsequent improvement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207