MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156018069 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.01372.2007

Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation during handgrip exercise: evidence for endothelial transduction of the mean shear stimulus

2008· article· en· W2156018069 on OpenAlexaff
Kyra E. Pyke, Veronica J. Poitras, Michael E. Tschakovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrachial arteryForearmVasodilationMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineStimulus (psychology)Shear stressMaterials scienceAnatomyBlood pressurePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise elevates shear stress in the supplying conduit artery. Although this is the most relevant physiological stimulus for flow-mediated dilation (FMD), the fluctuating pattern of shear that occurs may influence the shear stress-FMD stimulus response relationship. This study tested the hypothesis that the brachial artery FMD response to a step increase in shear is influenced by the fluctuating characteristics of the stimulus, as evoked by forearm exercise. In 16 healthy subjects, we examined FMD responses to step increases in shear rate in three conditions: stable shear upstream of heat-induced forearm vasodilation (FHStable); fluctuating shear upstream of heat-induced forearm vasodilation and rhythmic forearm cuff inflation/deflation (FHFluctuating); and fluctuating shear upstream of exercise-induced forearm vasodilation (FEStep Increase). The mean increase in shear rate (+/-SD) was the same in all trials (FHFluctuating): 51.69 +/- 15.70 s(-1); FHStable: 52.16 +/- 14.10 s(-1); FEStep Increase: 50.14 +/- 13.03 s(-1) P = 0.131). However, the FHFluctuating and FEStep Increase trials resulted in a fluctuating shear stress stimulus with rhythmic high and low shear periods that were 96.18 +/- 24.54 and 11.80 +/- 7.30 s(-1), respectively. The initial phase of FMD (phase I) was followed by a second, delayed-onset FMD and was not different between conditions (phase I: FHFluctuating: 5.63 +/- 2.15%; FHStable: 5.33 +/- 1.85%; FEStep Increase: 5.30 +/- 2.03%; end-trial: FHFluctuating: 7.76 +/- 3.40%; FHStable: 7.00 +/- 3.03%; FEStep Increase: 6.68 +/- 3.04%; P = 0.196). Phase I speed also did not differ (P = 0.685). In conclusion, the endothelium transduced the mean shear when exposed to shear fluctuations created by a typical handgrip protocol. Muscle activation did not alter the FMD response. Forearm exercise may provide a viable technique to investigate brachial artery FMD in humans.

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 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 score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations84
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207