Cardiac Output and Cerebral Blood Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractAbstract Cerebral blood flow (CBF) is rigorously regulated by various powerful mechanisms to safeguard the match between cerebral metabolic demand and supply. The question of how a change in cardiac output (CO) affects CBF is fundamental, because CBF is dependent on constantly receiving a significant proportion of CO. The authors reviewed the studies that investigated the association between CO and CBF in healthy volunteers and patients with chronic heart failure. The overall evidence shows that an alteration in CO, either acutely or chronically, leads to a change in CBF that is independent of other CBF-regulating parameters including blood pressure and carbon dioxide. However, studies on the association between CO and CBF in patients with varying neurologic, medical, and surgical conditions were confounded by methodologic limitations. Given that CBF regulation is multifactorial but the various processes must exert their effects on the cerebral circulation simultaneously, the authors propose a conceptual framework that integrates the various CBF-regulating processes at the level of cerebral arteries/arterioles while still maintaining autoregulation. The clinical implications pertinent to the effect of CO on CBF are discussed. Outcome research relating to the management of CO and CBF in high-risk patients or during high-risk surgeries is needed. Cardiac output causally affects cerebral blood flow. A conceptualization is proposed for the purpose of integrating at the level of cerebral resistance vessel various mechanisms that regulate the cerebral circulation and jointly determine the brain perfusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".