Local blood flow in peripheral nerves and their ganglia: Resurrecting key ideas around its measurement and significance
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
Over 3 decades ago, seminal work by Phillip Low and colleagues established exquisite physiology around the measurement of nerve blood flow (NBF). Although not widely explored recently, its connection to the clinic has awaited human methodology. While human studies have not achieved a convincing level of rigour, newer imaging technologies are offering early information. The peripheral nerve trunk has parallel blood flow compartments that include epineurial flow dominated by arteriovenous shunts and downstream endoneurial blood flow (EBF). NBF and EBF have lower values than central nervous system blood flow, lack autoregulation yet have sympathetic and peptidergic neurovascular control. Contrary to expectation, injury to nerves is often associated with rises in NBF rather than ischemia, a finding of biological interest corroborated by human studies. Despite its potential importance, quantitative human measurements of EBF and NBF are not yet available. However, with development, careful NBF analysis may present new insights into nerve disorders. Muscle Nerve 57: 884-895, 2018.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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