Baroreflex resetting after successful surgical repair of tetralogy of Fallot.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) and its surgical repair are associated with alterations in right ventricular systolic and diastolic functions. The cardiopulmonary baroreflex describes the peripheral vasoconstriction response to the volume-unloading deactivation of left and possibly right ventricular receptors. Alterations in cardiac geometry or distensibility and pulmonary vasculature of operated TOF may affect the mechanical stimulation of sensitive cardiopulmonary receptors leading to an impaired baroreflex function. There has to date been no report on the integrity of baroreflex function in postoperative TOF. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the combined cardiopulmonary and baroreflex response of patients successfully operated for TOF in early childhood to central volume unloading using graded lower body negative pressure (LBNP) application. METHODS: Fifteen patients operated on for TOF (mean+/-SEM) 15.7+/-1.4 years previously and 13 healthy age-matched control subjects were submitted to four consecutive 5 min LBNP applications at -10, -20, -30 and -40 mmHg. Forearm blood flow and vascular resistance, left ventricle end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), arterial blood pressure and heart rate were obtained. RESULTS: TOF exhibited a lower LVEDD (42.7+/-1.5 mm) than control subjects (51.9+/-1.6). The forearm vascular resistance to LVEDD relationship was shifted left and upward in TOF compared with that of control subjects, but the slope of the relationship was not different between groups. LBNP -40 mmHg induced a lesser change in heart rate in TOF (+10.6+/-1.5%) than in control subjects (+14.7 +/-2.4%) and an increase (P<0.05) in diastolic blood pressure in TOF (-2.4+/-2.5%), which was not seen in control subjects (+4.3+/-2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Young adults successfully operated on for TOF in early childhood exhibit a resetting of the cardiopulmonary baroreflex to operate at smaller LVEDD and at a higher level of forearm vascular resistance. The blunted heart rate response to LBNP -40 mmHg is consistent with previous observations pointing to disturbances in the efferent arm of the baroreflex.
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".