Neurogenic-nitric oxide interactions affecting brachial artery mechanics in humans: roles of vessel distensibility vs. diameter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to assess the interactive influence of sympathetic activation and supplemental nitric oxide (NO) on brachial artery distensibility vs. its diameter. It was hypothesized that 1) sympathetic activation and NO competitively impact muscular conduit artery (brachial artery) mechanics, and 2) neurogenic constrictor input affects conduit vessel stiffness independently of outright changes in conduit vessel diastolic diameter. Lower body negative pressure (LBNP) and a cold pressor stress (CPT) were used to study the changes in conduit vessel mechanics when the increased sympathetic outflow occurred with and without changes in heart rate (LBNP -40 vs. -15 mmHg) and blood pressure (CPT vs. LBNP). These maneuvers were performed in the absence and presence of nitroglycerin. Neither LBNP nor CPT altered brachial artery diastolic diameter; however, distensibility was reduced by 25 to 54% in each reflex (all P < 0.05). This impact of sympathetic activation on brachial artery distensibility was not altered by nitroglycerin supplementation (21-54%; P < 0.05), although baseline diameter was increased by the exogenous NO (P < 0.05). The results indicate that sympathetic excitation can reduce the distensibility of the brachial artery independently of concurrent changes in diastolic diameter, heart rate, and blood pressure. However, exogenous NO did not minimize or reverse brachial stiffening during sympathetic activation. Therefore, sympathetic outflow appears to impact the stiffness of this conduit vessel rather than its diastolic diameter or, by inference, its local resistance to flow.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".