Lower limb movement related increases in simulated arterial pressure during walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study has shown the potential of rotational movement in increasing arterial blood pressure during shoulder motion (Sheriff et al,2009). The aim is to investigate the effect of motion on simulated arterial pressure during walking. Ten participants walked while wearing mid‐thigh and mid‐shank mounted strain gauges connected to water filled tubes and bony landmark markers. Pressure measured during walking by the strain gauges ranged from 0 to 130mmHg. Pressure measurements fluctuated during the gait cycle with minimums during mid‐stance and swing and peaks during early stance and swing. A kinematic model was used to evaluate the influence of different movement components on the pressure measurements. The measured and calculated pressures were found to have similar profiles with slightly different averages (measured:55mmHg; calculated:60mmHg, p=0.08). The orthostatic pressure component has a large contribution with movement related pressures having both positive and negative effects. This study shows the interaction between the different components in modulating arterial pressure and the need to investigate these mechanisms in order to optimize exercise in conditions like peripheral artery disease.
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".