MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763820575 · doi:10.1113/ep086621

Cardiac and haemodynamic influence on carotid artery longitudinal wall motion

2017· article· en· W2763820575 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason S. Au, Paula Bochnak, Sydney E. Valentino, Jem L. Cheng, Eric J. Stöhr, Maureen J. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineHemodynamicsHeart rateCommon carotid arteryBlood pressureArteryCarotid arteries

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NEW FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? Carotid artery longitudinal wall motion (CALM) is a bidirectional forward and backward motion of the arterial wall; however, there is no evidence in humans for what controls CALM despite proposals for pulse pressure, left ventricular motion and shear rate. What is the main finding and its importance? Carotid artery longitudinal wall motion responses were heterogeneous when manipulating sympathetic activation and endothelium-independent vasodilatation, leading to non-significant group responses. However, individual CALM responses were associated with left ventricular rotation and shear rate. These findings are important when interpreting changes in CALM in humans with acute or chronic experimental designs. Carotid artery longitudinal wall motion (CALM) has recently attracted interest as an indicator of arterial health; however, the regulation of CALM is poorly understood. We conducted a series of studies aimed at manipulating pulse pressure (PP), left ventricular (LV) motion and carotid shear rate, which have been previously suggested to regulate various components of CALM pattern and magnitude. To determine the regulatory influences on CALM, 15 healthy men (22 ± 2 years old) were exposed to three acute interventions: the serial subtraction test (SST); the cold pressor test (CPT); and exposure to sublingual nitroglycerine (NTG). The SST elicited increases in PP (P < 0.01), apical LV rotation (P < 0.01) and carotid shear rate (P < 0.01), with no changes in CALM (P > 0.05). Likewise, the CPT elicited increases in PP (P = 0.01), basal LV rotation (P = 0.04) and carotid shear rate (P = 0.01), with no changes in CALM (P > 0.05). Conversely, exposure to NTG elicited no change in PP (P = 0.22), basal (P = 0.65) or apical LV rotation (P = 0.45), but did decrease carotid shear rate (P < 0.01), without altering CALM (P > 0.05). Considerable individual variability in CALM responses prompted further analyses where all three interventions were pooled for change scores. Changes in LV basal rotation were related to changes in systolic retrograde CALM (B = -0.025, P = 0.03), whereas changes in carotid shear rate were related to changes in diastolic CALM displacement (B = 0.0009, P = 0.01). The interventions were underpinned by relationships between CALM and both LV basal rotation and local shear rate at the individual level, indicating that cardiac and haemodynamic factors may influence CALM in humans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207