MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147762989 · doi:10.1080/02713680590956739

Effects of Transient Mild Systemic Hypoxia on the Pulsatile Choroidal Blood Flow in Healthy Young Human Adults

2005· article· en· W2147762989 on OpenAlexafffund
Hélène Kergoat, Julie-Andrée Marinier, John V. Lovasik

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Eye Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPulsatile flowHypoxia (environmental)MedicineBlood pressureAnesthesiaBlood flowIntraocular pressureOxygen saturationInternal medicineCardiologyOxygenOphthalmologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of transient mild systemic hypoxia on the pulsatile ocular blood flow (POBF) in the healthy young adult. METHODS: Two measurements of the intraocular pressure (IOP) pulses, used to derive the POBF, were recorded from 19 subjects before, during, and after breathing 12% oxygen in nitrogen. Many physiological variables were also assessed throughout testing. RESULTS: Transient mild systemic hypoxia decreased the hemoglobin oxygen saturation and end-tidal carbon dioxide, increased the heart rate, but did not change the respiratory rate, systemic blood pressure, or ocular perfusion pressure. Mild systemic hypoxia decreased the intraocular pulse volume and the systolic and diastolic times but did not alter the pulse amplitude or the POBF. The IOP was not altered during mild systemic hypoxia. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of change in the POBF during transient mild systemic hypoxia indicated that the global pulsatile choroidal blood flow was not vulnerable to the effects of this transient mild systemic hypoxic stress in the healthy young adult.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Eye ResearchSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207