The effects of superimposed tilt and lower body negative pressure on anterior and posterior cerebral circulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steady-state tilt has no effect on cerebrovascular reactivity to increases in the partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (PETCO2). However, the anterior and posterior cerebral circulations may respond differently to a variety of stimuli that alter central blood volume, including lower body negative pressure (LBNP). Little is known about the superimposed effects of head-up tilt (HUT; decreased central blood volume and intracranial pressure) and head-down tilt (HDT; increased central blood volume and intracranial pressure), and LBNP on cerebral blood flow (CBF) responses. We hypothesized that (a) cerebral blood velocity (CBV; an index of CBF) responses during LBNP would not change with HUT and HDT, and (b) CBV in the anterior cerebral circulation would decrease to a greater extent compared to posterior CBV during LBNP when controlling PETCO2 In 13 male participants, we measured CBV in the anterior (middle cerebral artery, MCAv) and posterior (posterior cerebral artery, PCAv) cerebral circulations using transcranial Doppler ultrasound during LBNP stress (-50 mmHg) in three body positions (45°HUT, supine, 45°HDT). PETCO2 was measured continuously and maintained at constant levels during LBNP through coached breathing. Our main findings were that (a) steady-state tilt had no effect on CBV responses during LBNP in both the MCA (P = 0.077) and PCA (P = 0.583), and (b) despite controlling for PETCO2, both the MCAv and PCAv decreased by the same magnitude during LBNP in HUT (P = 0.348), supine (P = 0.694), and HDT (P = 0.407). Here, we demonstrate that there are no differences in anterior and posterior circulations in response to LBNP in different body positions.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".