MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119606479 · doi:10.1002/nbm.3026

Cerebral blood flow response to acute hypoxic hypoxia

2013· article· en· W2119606479 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNMR in Biomedicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHigher Education Funding Council for WalesWellcome Trust
KeywordsCerebral blood flowHypoxia (environmental)OxygenationPerfusionAnesthesiaMedicineBlood flowInternal medicineCardiologyCerebral perfusion pressureChemistryNuclear medicineOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypoxic hypoxia (inspiratory hypoxia) stimulates an increase in cerebral blood flow (CBF) maintaining oxygen delivery to the brain. However, this response, particularly at the tissue level, is not well characterised. This study quantifies the CBF response to acute hypoxic hypoxia in healthy subjects. A 20-min hypoxic (mean P(ETO2) = 52 mmHg) challenge was induced and controlled by dynamic end-tidal forcing whilst CBF was measured using pulsed arterial spin labelling perfusion MRI. The rate constant, temporal delay and magnitude of the CBF response were characterised using an exponential model for whole-brain and regional grey matter. Grey matter CBF increased from 76.1 mL/100 g/min (95% confidence interval (CI) of fitting: 75.5 mL/100 g/min, 76.7 mL/100 g/min) to 87.8 mL/100 g/min (95% CI: 86.7 mL/100 g/min, 89.6 mL/100 g/min) during hypoxia, and the temporal delay and rate constant for the response to hypoxia were 185 s (95% CI: 132 s, 230 s) and 0.0035 s(-1) (95% CI: 0.0019 s(-1), 0.0046 s(-1)), respectively. Recovery from hypoxia was faster with a delay of 20 s (95% CI: -38 s, 38 s) and a rate constant of 0.0069 s(-1) (95% CI: 0.0020 s(-1), 0.0103 s(-1)). R2*, an index of blood oxygenation obtained simultaneously with the CBF measurement, increased from 30.33 s(-1) (CI: 30.31 s(-1), 30.34 s(-1)) to 31.48 s(-1) (CI: 31.47 s(-1), 31.49 s(-1)) with hypoxia. The delay and rate constant for changes in R2 * were 24 s (95% CI: 21 s, 26 s) and 0.0392 s(-1) (95% CI: 0.0333 s(-1), 0.045 s(-1)), respectively, for the hypoxic response, and 12 s (95% CI: 10 s, 13 s) and 0.0921 s(-1) (95% CI: 0.0744 s(-1), 0.1098 s(-1)/) during the return to normoxia, confirming rapid changes in blood oxygenation with the end-tidal forcing system. CBF and R2* reactivity to hypoxia differed between subjects, but only R2* reactivity to hypoxia differed significantly between brain regions.

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.293 · 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