MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399809611

Seven-degree head-down tilt reduces choroidal pulsatile ocular blood flow.

2005· article· en· W2399809611 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Kergoat, John V. Lovasik

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsatile flowChoroidMedicineBlood flowHead-Down TiltOphthalmologyRetinalPerfusionHemodynamicsMicrocirculationBlood pressureAnesthesiaRetinaCardiologyInternal medicineOptics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the effects of head-down tilt (HDT), which simulates microgravity during spaceflights, on the choroidal pulsatile ocular blood flow (POBF). This investigation is important because alterations in the choroidal blood flow can affect the function of retinal rods and cones that rely totally on the choroid for metabolites. METHODS: Nineteen healthy adults between 20 and 38 yr of age participated in this study. The POBF was compared for: 1) baseline, wherein subjects were declined 30 degrees from vertical; 2) microgravity simulation where subjects were in a 7 degrees HDT for 2 min; 3) 90 min of the 7 degrees HDT; and 4) recovery, i.e., back at 30 degrees for 2 min. RESULTS: The group averaged POBF (Mean +/- SEM values: 828.43 +/- 48.88 microL x min(-1)) decreased immediately during the 2-min microgravity simulation (582.18 +/- 43.62 microL x min(-1)), remained at that inferior level at the 90-min mark of HDT (542.26 +/- 45.35 microL x min(-1)), and came back toward baseline POBF during the recovery period (760.11 +/- 46.03 microL x min(-1)) (p = 0.0001). DISCUSSION: The results show that simulated-microgravity of relatively short duration induces retinal hypoperfusion throughout the microgravity interval through the reduction in the POBF. This finding may have important implications regarding visual performance in space crewmembers placed in prolonged microgravity environments.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207