Cardiac baroreflex gain is frequency dependent: insights from repeated sit-to-stand maneuvers and the modified Oxford method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac baroreflex gain is usually quantified as the reflex alteration in heart rate during changes in blood pressure without considering the effect of the rate of change in blood pressure on the estimated gain. This study sought to (i) characterize baroreflex gain as a function of blood pressure oscillation frequencies using a repeat sit-to-stand method and (ii) compare baroreflex gain values obtained using the sit-to-stand method against the modified Oxford method. Fifteen healthy individuals underwent the repeated sit-to-stand method in which blood pressure oscillations were driven at 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, and 0.1 Hz. Sixteen healthy participants underwent the sit-to-stand and modified Oxford methods to examine their agreement. Sit-to-stand baroreflex gain was highest at 0.05 Hz (8.8 ± 3.2 ms·mm Hg(-1)) and lowest at 0.1 Hz (5.8 ± 3.0 ms·mm Hg(-1)). Baroreflex gains at 0.03 Hz (7.7 ± 3.0 ms·mm Hg(-1)) and 0.07 Hz (7.5 ± 3.3 ms·mm Hg(-1)) were not different from the baroreflex gain at 0.05 Hz. There was moderate correlation between phenylephrine gain and sit-to-stand gain (r values ranged from 0.52 to 0.75; all frequencies, p < 0.05), but no correlation between sodium nitroprusside gain and sit-to-stand gain (r values ranged from -0.07 to 0.22; all p < 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis of phenylephrine gain and sit-to-stand gain showed poor agreement and a positive proportional bias. These results show that baroreflex gains derived from these 2 methods cannot be used interchangeably. Furthermore, cardiac baroreflex gain is frequency dependent between 0.03 Hz and 0.1 Hz, which challenges the conventional practice of summarizing baroreflex gain as a single number.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".