Carotid artery longitudinal wall motion is associated with local blood velocity and left ventricular rotational, but not longitudinal, mechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have identified a predictable movement pattern of the common carotid artery wall in the longitudinal direction. While there is evidence that the magnitude of this carotid artery longitudinal wall motion (CALM) is sensitive to cardiovascular health status, little is known about the determinants of CALM The purpose of this integrative study was to evaluate the contribution of left ventricular (LV) cardiac motion and local blood velocity to CALM Simultaneous ultrasound measurements of CALM, common carotid artery mean blood velocity (MBV), and left ventricular motion were performed in ten young, healthy individuals (6 males; 22 ± 1 years). Peak anterograde CALM occurred at a similar time as peak MBV (18.57 ± 3.98% vs. 18.53 ± 2.81% cardiac cycle; t-test: P = 0.94; ICC: 0.79, P < 0.01). The timing of maximum retrograde CALM displacement was different, but related, to both peak apical (41.00 ± 7.81% vs. 35.33 ± 5.79% cardiac cycle; t-test: P < 0.01; ICC: 0.79, P < 0.01) and basal rotation (41.80 ± 6.12% vs. 37.30 ± 5.66% cardiac cycle; t-test: P < 0.01; ICC: 0.74, P < 0.01) with peak cardiac displacements preceding peak CALM displacements in both cases. The association between basal rotation and retrograde CALM was further supported by strong correlations between their peak magnitudes (r = -0.70, P = 0.02), whereas the magnitude of septal longitudinal displacement was not associated with peak CALM (r = 0.11, P = 0.77). These results suggest that the rotational mechanical movement of the LV base may be closely associated with longitudinal mechanics in the carotid artery. This finding may have important implications for interpreting the complex relationship between ventricular and vascular function.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".