MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131174847 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2004.834272

Nonlinear Modeling of the Dynamic Effects of Arterial Pressure and<tex>$rm CO_2$</tex>Variations on Cerebral Blood Flow in Healthy Humans

2004· article· en· W2131174847 on OpenAlexaff
Georgios D. Mitsis, Marc J. Poulin, Peter A. Robbins, V.Z. Marmarelis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsBeat (acoustics)Cerebral blood flowCerebral autoregulationBlood flowBlood pressureNonlinear systemAutoregulationPhysicsInternal medicineMedicineAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of spontaneous beat-to-beat mean arterial blood pressure fluctuations and breath-to-breath end-tidal CO2 fluctuations on beat-to-beat cerebral blood flow velocity variations is studied using the Laguerre-Volterra network methodology for multiple-input nonlinear systems. The observations made from experimental measurements from ten healthy human subjects reveal that, whereas pressure fluctuations explain most of the high-frequency blood flow velocity variations (above 0.04 Hz), end-tidal CO2 fluctuations as well as nonlinear interactions between pressure and CO2 have a considerable effect in the lower frequencies (below 0.04 Hz). They also indicate that cerebral autoregulation is strongly nonlinear and dynamic (frequency-dependent). Nonlinearities are mainly active in the low-frequency range (below 0.04 Hz) and are more prominent in the dynamics of the end-tidal CO2-blood flow velocity relationship. Significant nonstationarities are also revealed by the obtained models, with greater variability evident for the effects of CO2 on blood flow velocity dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations131
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207