Time-varying properties of renal autoregulatory mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to assess the possible time-varying properties of renal autoregulation, time-frequency and time-scaling methods were applied to renal blood flow under broad-band forced arterial blood pressure fluctuations and single-nephron renal blood flow with spontaneous oscillations obtained from normotensive (Sprague-Dawley, Wistar, and Long-Evans) rats, and spontaneously hypertensive rats. Time-frequency analyses of normotensive and hypertensive blood flow data obtained from either the whole kidney or the single-nephron show that indeed both the myogenic and tubuloglomerular feedback (TGF) mechanisms have time-varying characteristics. Furthermore, we utilized the Renyi entropy to measure the complexity of blood-flow dynamics in the time-frequency plane in an effort to discern differences between normotensive and hypertensive recordings. We found a clear difference in Renyi entropy between normotensive and hypertensive blood flow recordings at the whole kidney level for both forced (p < 0.037) and spontaneous arterial pressure fluctuations (p < 0.033), and at the single-nephron level (p < 0.008). Especially at the single-nephron level, the mean Renyi entropy is significantly larger for hypertensive than normotensive rats, suggesting more complex dynamics in the hypertensive condition. To further evaluate whether or not the separation of dynamics between normotensive and hypertensive rats is found in the prescribed frequency ranges of the myogenic and TGF mechanisms, we employed multiresolution wavelet transform. Our analysis revealed that exclusively over scale ranges corresponding to the frequency intervals of the myogenic and TGF mechanisms, the widths of the blood flow wavelet coefficients fall into disjoint sets for normotensive and hypertensive rats. The separation of the scales at the myogenic and TGF frequency ranges is distinct and obtained with 100% accuracy. However, this observation remains valid only for the whole kidney blood pressure/flow data. The results suggest that understanding of the time-varying properties of the two mechanisms is required for a complete description of renal autoregulation.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".