552-P: Baroreflex Function and Postprandial Hypotension in Older Adults With and Without Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a common etiology of postprandial hypotension (PPH), possibly as a result of autonomic neuropathy resulting in baroreflex dysfunction. We examined baroreflex function in older adults with PPH (with and without T2DM) during a standardized meal test. Methods: 57 adults with PPH (age >= 65; 30 without T2DM, 27 with T2DM) were recruited sequentially from a geriatric medicine clinic (mean age 77.9±0.9 years, 54% female) and had meal tests performed. A Finometer (Finapres Medical Systems) was used to monitor blood pressure. The baroreflex effectiveness index (BEI, percent) was calculated using the sequence method. Results: Baseline BEI showed no association with the average PPH response (p=0.521), the maximal PPH response (p=0.282), or the number of hypotensive episodes (p=0.859). As shown in Figure 1, baseline BEI was lower in subjects with T2DM than in those without T2DM (p<0.001), but this impairment in baroreflex function was not observed postprandially. There was no significant difference in the average PPH response between those with and without T2DM (p=0.358). Conclusions: Although older subjects with PPH secondary to T2DM have lower baseline baroreflex function than older subjects with PPH without T2DM, this baroreflex impairment was not associated with the size of the PPH response. This suggests that PPH in the T2DM is not due to impairments in the arterial baroreflex. Disclosure K.M. Madden: None. B. Feldman: None. G.S. Meneilly: Advisory Panel; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc. Funding Allan M. McGavin Foundation; Canadian Diabetes Association
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".