Baroreflex Function after Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant cardiovascular and autonomic dysfunction occurs after spinal cord injury (SCI). It is now recognized that cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in SCI. Patients with SCI may also suffer severe orthostatic hypotension and autonomic dysreflexia. Baroreflex sensitivity (i.e., the capability of the autonomic nervous system to detect and respond effectively to acute changes in blood pressure) has been recognized as having predictive value for cardiovascular events, as well as playing a role in effective short-term regulation of blood pressure. The purpose of this article is to review the mechanisms underlying effective baroreflex function, describe the techniques available to measure baroreflex function, and summarize the literature examining baroreflex function after SCI. Finally, we describe the potential mechanisms responsible for baroreflex dysfunction after SCI and propose future avenues for research. Briefly, although cardiovagal baroreflex function is reduced markedly in those with high-level lesions (above the T6 level), the reduction appears to be partially mitigated in those with low-level lesions. Although no studies have examined the sympathetic arm of the baroreflex in those with SCI, despite this being arguably more important to blood pressure regulation than the cardiovagal baroreflex, nine articles have examined sympathetic responses to orthostatic challenges; these findings are reviewed. Future studies are needed to describe whether dysfunctional baroreflex sensitivity after SCI is due to arterial stiffening or a neural component. Further, measurement of forearm vascular conductance and/or muscle sympathetic nerve activity is required to directly evaluate the sensitivity of the sympathetic arm of the baroreflex in those with SCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".