Distensibility of the common carotid and carotid sinus during lower body negative pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in common carotid distensibility (CCD) do not correlate well with reductions in baroreflex sensitivity (BRS). This might be due to assessment of distensibility in the common carotid (CC) rather than the carotid sinus (CS), the location of the baroreceptors. To test this, two studies were performed. In Part 1 ( n =10), pulsatile pressure (tonometry) and diameter (Ultrasound) of the CC and CS were assessed on both sides of the neck. This study characterized the bilateral similarities of these vascular segments and confirmed that simultaneous diameter and pressure measures from contralateral CC and CS could be used for distensibility calculations. In Part 2 ( n =3), changes in the CCD and CS distensibility (CSD) measured during supine rest and with an orthostatic stress of ‐40 mmHg lower body negative pressure (LBNP). Bilateral comparisons of the CCD (R 6.81±1.39, L 6.17±0.59 units; P = 0.62) or the CSD (R 9.56±2.25, L 9.74±2.88 units; P = 0.97) were not different. Pulse pressures in the CC were 43±5 mmHg supine and 46±1 in LBNP and in the CS were 50±13 mmHg while supine and 28±7 mmHg during LBNP. Nonetheless, CSD was reduced from supine (9.3±0.75 units) during LBNP (3.79±1.51 units; P = 0.04) whereas CCD was unaffected (7.49±3.37 supine vs. 7.79±1.65 units in LBNP; P = 0.92). LBNP has a larger effect on distensibility of the CS than the CC. Supported by Canadian Diabetes Association and Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".