MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of acute exposure to 3,660 m altitude on orthostatic responses and tolerance

2003· article· en· W2080236729 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew P. Blaber, Tim Hartley, P. J. Pretorius

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresyncopeOrthostatic vital signsSupine positionHypocapniaMedicineAnesthesiaAutonomic nervous systemInternal medicineCardiologyEffects of high altitude on humansHyperventilationSympathetic nervous systemBlood pressureHeart rateRespiratory systemAnatomyHypercapnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orthostatic reflexes were examined at 375 m and after 60 min of exposure in a hypobaric chamber at 3660 m using a 20-min 70 degrees head-up tilt (HUT) test. Mean arterial blood pressure, R wave-R wave interval (RRI), and mean cerebral blood flow velocity (MFV) were examined with coarse-graining spectral analysis. Of 14 subjects, 7 at 375 m and 12 at 3660 m were presyncopal. Immediately on arrival to high altitude, breathing frequency and MFV increased, and endtidal PCO2, RRI, RRI complexity, and the parasympathetic nervous system indicator decreased. MFV was similar in HUT at both altitudes. The sympathetic nervous system indicator increased with tilt at 3660 m, whereas parasympathetic nervous system indicator decreased with tilt at both altitudes. Multiple regression analysis of supine variables from either 375 or 3660 m and the time to presyncope at 3660 m indicated that, after 1 h of exposure, increased presyncope at altitude was the result of 1). ineffective peripheral vasoconstriction, despite increased cardiac sympathetic nervous system activity with HUT, and 2). insufficient cerebral perfusion owing to cerebral vasoconstriction as the result of hypoxic hyperventilation-induced hypocapnia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207