MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297698096 · doi:10.1042/cs20150694

Cerebral blood flow regulation, exercise and pregnancy: why should we care?

2016· review· en· W2297698096 on OpenAlex
Michèle Bisson, Isabelle Marc, Patrice Brassard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Science · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCerebral blood flowPregnancyMedicineBlood flowPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral blood flow (CBF) regulation is an indicator of cerebrovascular health increasingly recognized as being influenced by physical activity. Although regular exercise is recommended during healthy pregnancy, the effects of exercise on CBF regulation during this critical period of important blood flow increase and redistribution remain incompletely understood. Moreover, only a few studies have evaluated the effects of human pregnancy on CBF regulation. The present work summarizes current knowledge on CBF regulation in humans at rest and during aerobic exercise in relation to healthy pregnancy. Important gaps in the literature are highlighted, emphasizing the need to conduct well-designed studies assessing cerebrovascular function before, during and after this crucial life period to evaluate the potential cerebrovascular risks and benefits of exercise during pregnancy.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.276 · 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