Blood Volume Redistribution During Hypovolemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to investigate the contribution of splanchnic volume redistribution and lower limb vasoconstriction in the maintenance of blood pressure during progressive central hypovolemia induced by graded lower body negative pressure (LBNP). It was hypothesized that splanchnic blood volume loss during LBNP would buffer decreases in thoracic blood volume. METHODS: There were 15 healthy subjects (8 men, 7 women) who participated in the study. We used LBNP of -10, -20, -30, and -40 mmHg with segmental impedance analysis to determine central and splanchnic volume changes, and near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to assess calf venous volume changes and vasoconstrictor tone. RESULTS: In relation to baseline, LBNP to -40 mmHg resulted in a 57% increase in deoxygenated blood in the calf, indicating venous pooling in the lower limbs. These events led to a decrease in venous return and a 28% decline in cardiac output. Total upper body impedance increased by 6.6% with a 2.4% change in thoracic and a 13.1% increase in splanchnic impedance with progressive LBNP. Splanchnic blood volume contributed to more than 50% of the volume redistribution to the thoracic compartment during hypovolemia. Both men and women increased their heart rate, but only men vasoconstricted (4.4%) with increasing LBNP. The net result of these events was the maintenance of mean arterial blood pressure with no presyncopal symptoms in these subjects. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that splanchnic blood volume redistribution--rather than leg vasoconstriction--plays an important role in blood pressure regulation during central hypovolemia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".