A questionable association of stroke volume and arterial pulse pressure under gravitational stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine individual stroke volume-pulse pressure (PP) relationships in healthy young men and women. METHODS: Sixteen healthy men and women were assessed at baseline and during four 12-minute stages of progressive lower body negative pressure (LBNP) at -15, -30, -45, and -60 mm Hg. RESULTS: Throughout staged LBNP, systolic blood pressure (105 ± 7.8 vs. 103 ± 8.3 mm Hg) and mean arterial pressure were not statistically different (81 ± 5.6 vs. 83 ± 5.9 mm Hg). There was also a significant increase in diastolic blood pressure (69 ± 5.3 vs. 72 ± 5.9 mm Hg) and heart rate (63 ± 8.3 vs. 86 ± 14.2 bpm) as well as a decrease in PP (37 ± 5.7 vs. 31 ± 7.0 mm Hg) and stroke volume (80 ± 17.0 vs. 26.6 ± 10.0 mL). There was a strong positive relationship for LBNP versus stroke volume (r2 = 0.99), PP (r2 = 0.96), and heart rate (r2 = -0.92), as well as for stroke volume versus PP (r2 = 0.98) and stroke volume versus heart rate (r = -0.94). Substantial intersubject variability in the stroke volume and PP correlations were presented. Strong, significant correlations were only displayed for 38% of the participants, while heart rate and stroke volume was strongly associated in 63% of these individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This work highlights the limitations of using PP when assessing trauma patients because of large interindividual differences.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".