MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945449385 · doi:10.3390/ijms20102464

The Blood Pressure Pendulum following Spinal Cord Injury: Implications for Vascular Cognitive Impairment

2019· review· en· W2945449385 on OpenAlexafffund
Rahul Sachdeva, Tom E. Nightingale, Andrei V. Krassioukov

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreVancouver Coastal HealthInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInternational Collaboration on Repair DiscoveriesMichael Smith Health Research BCCraig H. Neilsen FoundationHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAutonomic dysreflexiaSpinal cord injuryMedicinePopulationOrthostatic vital signsCognitionBlood pressurePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive impairment following spinal cord injury (SCI) has received considerable attention in recent years. Among the various systemic effects of SCI that contribute towards cognitive decline in this population, cardiovascular dysfunction is arguably one of the most significant. The majority of individuals with a cervical or upper-thoracic SCI commonly experience conditions called orthostatic hypotension and autonomic dysreflexia, which are characterized by dangerous fluctuations in systemic blood pressure (BP). Herein, we review the potential impact of extreme BP lability on vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) in individuals with SCI. Albeit preliminary in the SCI population, there is convincing evidence that chronic hypotension and hypertension in able-bodied individuals results in devastating impairments in cerebrovascular health, leading to VCI. We discuss the pertinent literature, and while drawing mechanistic comparisons between able-bodied cohorts and individuals with SCI, we emphasize the need for additional research to elucidate the mechanisms of cognitive impairment specific to the SCI population. Lastly, we highlight the current and potential future therapies to manage and treat BP instability, thereby possibly mitigating VCI in the SCI population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207