MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repeatability of Reactive Hyperemia Flow‐Mediated Dilation in the Superficial Femoral Artery

2015· article· en· W2109569764 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah Schmitter, Trevor J. King, Kyra E. Pyke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWeatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
KeywordsMedicineReactive hyperemiaCuffBrachial arteryRepeatabilityOcclusionCardiologyBlood flowFemoral arteryInternal medicineNuclear medicineSurgeryBlood pressureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reactive hyperemia (RH) is induced via the release of a temporary limb occlusion and causes a transient increase in artery shear stress. Flow‐mediated dilation stimulated by RH (RH‐FMD) is a standard index of endothelial function in the brachial artery however, relatively few studies have assessed RH‐FMD in the superficial femoral artery (SFA). The purpose of this study was to determine the repeatability of RH‐FMD in the SFA. SFA RH‐FMD was measured in 19 subjects (10 males and 9 females; age: 24 ± 2 years). Subjects performed four 5‐minute occlusion RH trials in a seated position with the cuff placed above the knee. Six minutes of recovery followed cuff release. SFA diameter and blood velocity were assessed using echo and Doppler ultrasound, respectively. Shear stress was estimated using shear rate (SR = mean blood velocity/SFA diameter). RH‐FMD was calculated as the % increase from baseline diameter to the peak 3 second diameter measurement post occlusion release. Results are expressed as mean ± SD. The RH SR area under the curve (AUC) for the 30 seconds following cuff release was higher in trial 1 versus trial 2 and 3 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.021). There were no differences in %RH‐FMD across trials (RH trial 1: 5.2 ± 2.6%, trial 2: 5.0 ± 2.3%, trial 3: 4.5 ± 2.2%, and trial 4: 5.0 ± 2.9%, p = 0.465). FMD normalized to the SR AUC also did not differ between trials (p = 0.879). In conclusion, despite some variability in the SR stimulus, there was no systematic change in %RH‐FMD over four repeated trials. Funded by NSERC and CFI

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207