Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical Practicability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trauma to the spinal cord often results not only in sensorimotor but also autonomic impairments. The loss of autonomic control over the cardiovascular system can cause profound blood pressure (BP) derangements in subjects with spinal cord injury (SCI) and may therefore lead to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in this population. The use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) allows insights into circadian BP profiles, which have been shown to be of good prognostic value for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in able-bodied subjects. Past studies in SCI subjects using ABPM have shown that alterations in circadian BP patterns are dependent on the spinal lesion level. Tetraplegic subjects with sensorimotor complete lesions have a decreased daytime arterial BP, loss of the physiological nocturnal BP dip, and higher circadian BP variability, including potentially life-threatening hypertensive episodes known as autonomic dysreflexia (AD), compared with paraplegic and able-bodied subjects. The proposed underlying mechanisms of these adverse BP alterations mainly are attributed to a lost or decreased central drive to sympathetic spinal preganglionic neurons controlling the heart and blood vessels. In addition, several maladaptive anatomical changes within the spinal cord and the periphery, as well as the general decrease of physical daily activity in SCI subjects, account for adverse BP changes. ABPM enables the identification of adverse BP profiles and the associated increased risk for CVD in SCI subjects. Concurrently, it also might provide a useful clinical tool to monitor improvements of AD and lost nocturnal dip after appropriate treatments in the SCI population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".