MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Tracking cerebral blood flow regulation during incremental ascent to altitude: Effect of superimposed hypoxia and hypocapnia

2018· article· en· W2903756281 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hailey C. Lafave, Shaelynn M. Zouboules, Marina James, Graeme M. Purdy, Jordan Rees, P Ondruš, Heidi C Nysten, Tom C Brutsaert, Cassandra E. Nysten, Craig D. Steinback, Mingma Sherpa, Trevor A. Day

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsRed Deer Regional HospitalUniversity of AlbertaMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypocapniaCerebral blood flowMedicineCardiologyAnesthesiaBlood pressureEffects of high altitude on humansInternal medicineArterial bloodInternal carotid arteryHypercapniaRespiratory systemAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High altitude exposure imposes a unique cerebrovascular challenge due to the presentation of two opposing blood gas stimuli. Specifically, hypoxia causes cerebral vasodilation, increasing cerebral blood flow (CBF), whereas respiratory‐induced hypocapnia causes cerebral vasoconstriction, decreasing CBF. Accordingly, arterial blood gases are large determinants of resting CBF, but the conflicting nature of these two superimposed chemostimuli presents a challenge in tracking CBF responsiveness with ascent to altitude. The extent that conflicting arterial blood gas variables affect CBF during incremental ascent to moderate altitude (i.e., the typical ascent profile for trekkers) is unclear. In 16 lowlanders during incremental ascent to altitude, we aimed to (a) characterize the relationship between arterial blood gas stimuli with regional and global CBF and (b) develop a novel index to track changes in CBF in relation to simultaneous but conflicting chemostmuli. During ascent to 4370m over seven days in the Nepal Himalaya, participants underwent serial resting measures at 1045m, 3440m (day 3) and 4370m (day 7) during incremental ascent to altitude. These measures included: arterial blood draws [radial artery; partial pressure of arterial (Pa)CO2, partial pressure of arterial (Pa)O2, arterial O2 saturation (SaO2)], unilateral anterior, unilateral posterior and global CBF (Duplex ultrasound; internal carotid artery [ICA] and vertebral artery [VA], global CBF [{ICA+VA}x2], respectively). We developed a novel stimulus index (SI), taking into account both chemostimuli (PaCO2/SaO2). Subsequently, both regional (ICA and VA) and global cerebral CBF were indexed against the SI to assess steady‐state cerebrovascular responsiveness (SS‐CVR). As expected, PaCO2, PaO2 and SaO2 all decreased with ascent to altitude (all P<0.001). SI remained relatively constant with ascent with a decrease observed at 4370m (P=0.07). Anterior (ICA) and global CBF did not increase significantly with ascent (P=0.15 and P=0.09, respectively), likely due to competing and simultaneous dilatory (hypoxia) and constricting (hypocapnia) chemostimuli. However, posterior (VA) CBF was significantly increased in comparison to baseline at 4370m (P=0.03). SS‐CVR for both regional and global CBF was significantly increased at 4370m (day 7 of altitude exposure; P<0.03) but not at 3440m (day 3 of altitude exposure; P0.08). Our data suggest that regional differences exist in CBF with incremental ascent, but that when indexed against superimposed and competing chemostimuli, SS‐CVR increases in both regional and global measures after seven days during incremental ascent to 4370m. Our novel SS‐CVR metric tracks cerebrovascular responsiveness during incremental ascent to moderate altitude, highlighting the importance of the braking effect of hypocapnia on cerebral blood flow regulation at altitude. Support or Funding Information This work was supported by (a) Alberta Government Student Temporary Employment Program, (b) Alberta Innovates Health Solutions Summer Studentship, and (c) Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery grant. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia→French-language works237,207→