MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Sex Differences in Baseline and Reactive Cerebrovascular Compliance

2020· article· en· W3016336723 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Erin Moir, Stephen A. Klassen, M. Zamir, J. Kevin Shoemaker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSittingMedicineCompliance (psychology)CardiologyCerebral autoregulationBlood pressureInternal medicineMiddle cerebral arteryHemodynamicsBrachial arteryAutoregulationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adjustments in cerebrovascular resistance represent the primary characterization of cerebral autoregulation to date. However, recent studies have demonstrated that cerebrovascular compliance contributes to the relationship between BP and cerebral blood velocity (BV) during dynamic changes in BP. Therefore, the present study tested the hypotheses that i) hypotension‐induced autoregulatory processes involve increases in cerebrovascular compliance and ii) sex differences exist in cerebrovascular compliance. Twenty young healthy adults (24 ± 3 years, 10 females) completed a sit‐to‐stand protocol involving three minutes of sitting and three minutes of standing while brachial artery BP (Finapres Finometer) and middle cerebral artery BV (Multigon Neurovision) were collected. Individual BP (with temporal shift) and corresponding BV waveforms were input into a four‐element lumped parameter Windkessel model to calculate indices of cerebrovascular compliance (Ci) and resistance (Ri). Beginning 20 beats prior to standing and continuing 40 beats following the stand, every other heartbeat was extracted so that a total of 30 beats were analyzed (i.e., 10 beats during sitting, 20 beats during standing). Seated baseline Ci was calculated as the average of the 10 beats of sitting. Peak Ci minus seated baseline Ci determined the change in (Δ) Ci. Females demonstrated higher Ci than males during seated baseline (1.1e −3 ± 4.4e −4 vs. 7.1e −4 ± 2.1e −4 cm·s −1 ·mmHg −1 ; P = 0.04, d = 1.3). Upon standing, large and rapid increases in Ci were observed in both groups but females exhibited a lesser increase when compared with males (114 ± 48 vs. 202 ± 50 %; P < 0.01, d = 1.8). No differences were observed in peak Ci with standing (females: 2.1e −3 ± 6.7e −4 , males: 2.1e −3 ± 5.5e −4 cm·s −1 ·mmHg −1 ; P = 0.89). While the drop in mean BP with standing was attenuated in females compared with males (−14 ± 5 vs. −25 ± 9 mmHg; P < 0.01, d = 1.5), no relationship existed between Δ Ci and Δ mean BP ( b = −7.0e −7 cm·s −1 ·mmHg −2 ; r 2 = 3.0e −4 ; b P = 0.94). Importantly, the increase in Ci preceded reductions in Ri (2 ± 2 vs. 11 ± 4 beats following standing; P < 0.01, d = 2.8). Therefore, large and rapid increases in Ci occur with standing‐induced hypotension that contribute to dynamic cerebral autoregulation. Further, females demonstrate attenuated Ci responses to standing despite exhibiting higher seated baseline Ci compared with males. Support or Funding Information Supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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