MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Integrative Physiology of Brain Perfusion During Extreme Chemoreflex Manoeuvers

2017· article· en· W2969939565 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Kevin Shoemaker, Otto Barak, Leena N. Shoemaker, Tanja Dragun, Mihajlo Lojpur, Ivan Drviš, Željko Dujić

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeurosciencePhysiologyIntensive care medicinePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) and vascular conductance (CVC) contribute to blood flow. Yet, rarely are these factors considered in cerebrovascular reactivity studies, in favour of the change in mean flow velocity (MFV) for a given dilatory stimulus such as carbon dioxide, an approach that can ignore the potential contributions of CPP. We tested the hypothesis that both CVC and CPP facilitate the increase cerebral perfusion during progressive chemoreflex stress. In healthy free divers (n=7; 1 female; age range = 22 to 34 years) middle cerebral artery MFV (transcranial Doppler ultrasound; Multigon), mean arterial pressure (MAP; Finometer), central venous pressure (CVP; dependent antecubital vein), end tidal CO 2 (ETCO 2 ; ADInstruments), and hemoglobin saturation (HbSat, pulse oximetry) were measured while CPP (MAP‐CVP) and CVC (MFV/CPP) were calculated. These indices were obtained at baseline, during a 2‐min preparatory phase of rebreathing to establish early effects on CVC and CPP, and then during i) extended rebreathe (RB), ii) apnea at total lung capacity (TLC), or iii) apnea at functional residual capacity (FRC); each stress assigned randomly and continued to volitional tolerance. ETCO 2 increased 12–18 mmHg in all conditions (Effect of Time, P<0.001; no Condition effect). The 59% HbSat level attained during RB was lower than FRC (78%) or TLC (80%) (Condition x Time interaction P<0.001). MFV was similar at baseline (TLC, 52±11; FRC, 49±8; RB, 51±11 cm/s) and increased similarly (Time effect, P<0.001) in TLC (111±17 cm/s), FRC (106±18 cm/s) and RB (108±11 cm/s; No Condition effect). CVC increased similarly in each condition (TLC, 49±11; FRC, 57±31; RB, 61±23%; Effect of Time P<0.001; No Condition effect). Also, CPP increased similarly in each condition (TLC, 46±16%; FRC, 42±14%; RB, 36±16%; Time effect P<0.001). The CVC response typically plateaued following the preparatory 2‐min rebreathe phase of each protocol whereas the majority of the CPP response occurred during the Apnea and extended rebreathe phases. Therefore, the determinants of the linear increase in MFV across the preparatory rebreathe phase, and the subsequent RB, TLC, or FRC condition phases, switched from a largely CVC mechanism at lower levels of stress, to increased CPP during the extended Apnea or RB manoeuvres, regardless of differences in HbSat. Support or Funding Information NSERC discovery grant # 217916‐2013 awarded to J.K.S.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→