Spinal Cord Disruption Is Associated with a Loss of Cushing-Like Blood Pressure Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity of the cerebrovasculature to buffer changes in blood pressure (BP) likely plays an important role in the prevention of stroke, which is three- to fourfold more common after spinal cord injury (SCI). Although the directional relationship between BP and cerebral blood flow (CBF) has traditionally been thought to travel solely from BP to CBF, a Cushing-like mechanism functioning in the inverse direction, in which changes in CBF influence BP, has recently been revealed using Granger causality analysis. Although both CBF buffering of BP and the Cushing-like mechanism are influenced by the sympathetic nervous system, we do not understand the impact of disruption of descending sympathetic pathways within the spinal cord, caused by cervical SCI on these regulatory systems. We hypothesized that people with cervical SCI would have greater BP to CBF transmission, as well as a reduced Cushing-like mechanism. The directional relationships between mean arterial BP (MAP; Finometer ® PRO) and middle cerebral artery blood velocity (MCAv; transcranial Doppler) were assessed at rest in 14 cervical SCI subjects and 16 uninjured individuals using Granger causality analysis, while also accounting for end-tidal CO 2 tension. Those with SCI exhibited 66% increased forward MAP→MCAv information transmission as compared with the uninjured group ( p = 0.0003), indicating reduced cerebrovascular buffering of BP, and did not have a predominant backward Cushing-like MCAv→MAP phenotype. These results indicate that both forward and backward communication between BP and CBF are influenced by SCI, which may be associated with impaired cerebrovascular BP buffering after SCI as well as widespread BP instability.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".