Predictors of orthostatic intolerance in healthy young women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Orthostatic intolerance is more prevalent in women. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the physiological responses of orthostatic tolerant and intolerant females to progressive lower body negative pressure (LBNP) and to identify predictors of orthostatic tolerance. METHODS: Following baseline measurements, eleven healthy, moderately active women (mean age 24 ± 3 yr) underwent an orthostatic challenge involving four 12-minute stages of progressive LBNP at -15, -30, -45 and -60 mmHg. Traditional haemodynamic characteristics, as well as baroreceptor sensitivity, were analyzed across all stages. RESULTS: Five women became presyncopal during the test and were classified as low tolerant (LT) while the remaining six were classified as high tolerant (HT). LBNP by group (tolerance) interactions were significantly different for stroke volume (P=0.008) and the rate of decline (slope) of stroke volume (P=0.03). During the early stages of LBNP, the LT group displayed a higher stroke volume than the HT group (76.4 ± 8.6 vs. 60.0 ± 13.3 mL/beat; P=0.02) yet by the final stage, stroke volumes were similar (22.5 ± 11.9 vs. 22.7 ± 4.5 mL/beat, P = 0.99). Baroreceptor sensitivity, heart rate variability and blood pressure variability were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this investigation suggest that orthostatic intolerance in women can be identified during the initial stages of an LBNP challenge, as evidenced by a more rapid decline in stroke volume.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".