Non-linear Heart Rate and Blood Pressure Interaction in Response to Lower-Body Negative Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early detection of hemorrhage remains an open problem. In this regard, blood pressure has been an ineffective measure of blood loss due to numerous compensatory mechanisms sustaining arterial blood pressure homeostasis. Here, we investigate the feasibility of causality detection in the heart rate and blood pressure interaction, a closed-loop control system, for early detection of hemorrhage. The hemorrhage was simulated via graded lower-body negative pressure (LBNP) from 0 to -40 mmHg. The research hypothesis was that a significant elevation of causal control in the direction of blood pressure to heart rate (i.e., baroreflex response) is an early indicator of central hypovolemia. Five minutes of continuous blood pressure and electrocardiogram (ECG) signals were acquired simultaneously from young, healthy participants (27±1 years, N=27) during each LBNP stage, from which heart rate (represented by RR interval), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were derived. The heart rate and blood pressure causal interaction (RR↔SBP and RR↔MAP) was studied during the last 3 minutes of each LBNP stage. At supine rest, the non-baroreflex arm (RR→SBP and RR→MAP) showed a significantly (p<0.001) higher causal drive towards blood pressure regulation compared to the baroreflex arm (SBP→RR and MAP→RR). In response to moderate category hemorrhage (-30 mmHg LBNP), no change was observed in the traditional marker of blood loss i.e. pulse pressure (p=0.10) along with the RR→SBP (p=0.76), RR→MAP (p=0.60), and SBP→RR (p=0.07) causality compared to the resting stage. Contrarily, a significant elevation in the MAP→RR (p=0.004) causality was observed. In accordance with our hypothesis, the outcomes of the research underscored the potential of compensatory baroreflex arm (MAP→RR) of the heart rate and blood pressure interaction towards differentiating a simulated moderate category hemorrhage from the resting stage. Therefore, monitoring baroreflex causality can have a clinical utility in making triage decisions to impede hemorrhage progression.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".