Allometric scaling of flow‐mediated dilation: is it always helpful?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Flow‐mediated dilation ( FMD ) is calculated as the greatest percent change in arterial diameter following an ischaemic challenge. This Traditional % FMD calculation is thought to have statistical bias towards baseline diameter (D base ), which is reduced by allometric scaling. This study examined whether allometric scaling FMD influenced the difference between a group of healthy young and older adults compared to the Traditional % FMD , and to determine whether a New (allometric) scaling % FMD improved the ability to obtain individually scaled FMD . Popliteal artery FMD was assessed in 18 young (26 ± 3 years) and 17 older adults (77 ± 5 years). ‘Corrected’ mean FMD was generated from a log‐linked ANCOVA model. Individual % FMD was evaluated using three calculations: (1) Traditional % FMD calculation; (2) Atkinson (allometric) scaling % FMD (peak diameter ); and (3) New scaling % FMD . Traditional % FMD was significantly larger in young (5·82 ± 2·58%) versus old (3·72 ± 1·26%). ‘Corrected’ FMD means (Y: 5·97 ± 2·12%; O: 3·98 ± 2·06%) were similar to Traditional % FMD ; however, the logarithmic transformation prevents statistical interpretation of group differences. Individually scaled % FMD using the Atkinson scaling resulted in values that were corrected for variations in D base but that were twofold to threefold larger than those of the Traditional calculation. New scaling % FMD resulted in values that were similar to values expected (Y: 6·21 ± 2·75%; O: 3·98 ± 1·36%); however, it did not effectively correct for variation in D base . Recommendations regarding the advantages of allometrically scaling % FMD should be made with caution until research clearly establishes the benefits of this approach.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it