Effects of transient change in carotid arterial stiffness on arterial baroreflex during mild orthostatic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stiffening of central conduit arteries eareas where the mechanoreceptors are embedded (e.g., ascending aorta and carotid artery) e is considered to be associated with the impaired baroreflex control in response to hypotensive stress.Arterial stiffness is modulated by vascular tone transiently and dynamically, however, it is unknown whether a transient change in the carotid artery stiffness influences the cardiac baroreflex response to a rapid hypotension.We measured (n Z 11) carotid arterial stiffness (via concurrent applanation tonometory and ultrasound imaging) at supine rest and during 20-degree head-up tilt (HUT).To evaluate the cardiac baroreflex response, acute hypotension was evoked by releasing bilateral thigh cuffs after 3 min of suprasystolic resting ischemia at each posture; cardiac baroreflex sensitivity (e.g., change in heart rate for a given change in mean arterial pressure, DHR/DMAP) and latency (e.g., the time to peak HR response) was estimated.Carotid b-stiffness index, a measure of arterial stiffness, was reduced by 14% during HUT (P < 0.05 vs. supine position).Although cardiac baroreflex responses were unaltered, the within-group biological variability in the cardiac baroreflex sensitivity and latency from the supine to HUT was correlated with the corresponding changes in carotid arterial stiffness (r Z 0.66 and r Z 0.64, respectively, both P < 0.05).These findings suggest that a transient change in carotid arterial stiffness, at least in part, influences changes in the cardiac baroreflex response to a rapid hypotension.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".