MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regional Cutaneous Vasodilator Responses to Rapid Local Heating in Young Women and Men

2020· article· en· W3017302532 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregory W. McGarr, Samah Saci, Caroline M. Muia, Mohamed R. Gemae, Madison D. Schmidt, Naoto Fujii, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasodilationForearmMedicineSupine positionPerfusionNitric oxideNeurovascular bundleMicrocirculationThighAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cutaneous vasodilator response to rapid, non‐painful, local skin heating is commonly used to test microvascular reactivity in health and disease states. The response is characterized by a transient initial vasodilatory peak that is primarily mediated by cutaneous sensory nerves, followed by a sustained plateau phase that is mainly nitric oxide dependent. While this test is most often performed on the forearm due to ease of administration, examining how local neurovascular (initial peak) and endothelium‐dependent (sustained plateau) vasodilator function varies across the body may provide important knowledge underlying regional differences in cutaneous perfusion. Thus, the purpose of this study was to characterize regional cutaneous vasodilator responses to rapid local skin heating in young adults and to determine if sex modulates these responses. In twenty‐nine (14 women) young adults, cutaneous red blood cell flux (AU, arbitrary units) was measured via laser‐Doppler flowmetry on the anterior calf, anterior thigh, abdomen, dorsal forearm, arm, and chest. Participants rested in the supine position for 30 min with skin sites in all regions controlled at 33°C. Following a 10 min baseline period all sites were rapidly heated to 42°C (1°C×20 −s ) with local heaters and maintained until a stable plateau was achieved (20–30 min). Sites were then heated to 44°C (20–30 min) to achieve maximum vasodilation. Blood pressure was measured manually every 10 min throughout. Cutaneous vasodilator responses were presented as cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC, AU×mmHg −1 ), normalized to maximum local heating (%CVC max ). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05 and all comparisons are presented as mean differences (95%CI) relative to the forearm. Baseline, initial peak, and plateau responses represent the combined group (n=29) since there were no sex differences across body regions (all P>0.05). At baseline, only responses at the chest (+5.0[2.2,7.8]%CVC max ), thigh (+4.8[1.9,7.6]%CVC max ), and calf (+4.8[1.4,8.2]%CVC max ) differed from the forearm (all P<0.05). For the initial peak, only the arm (+6.5[0.5,12.5]%CVC max ) and abdomen (−10.0[−17.2,−2.8]%CVC max ) differed from the forearm (both P<0.05). During the sustained plateau phase only the abdomen (−13.7[−19.4,−7.9]%CVC max ) and thigh (−6.0[−9.5,−2.4]CVC max ) differed from the forearm (both P<0.05). During maximum local heating, there was a significant sex by region interaction for absolute CVC (P<0.05). No regional differences in maximum responses were found for women, while for men maximum responses were greater at the thigh (−1.3[−2.1,−0.4] AU×mmHg −1 ) and calf (−1.3[−2.1,−0.5] AU×mmHg −1 ) relative to the forearm (both P<0.05). Our findings demonstrate that neurovascular (initial peak) and endothelium‐dependent (sustained plateau) cutaneous vasodilator responses to rapid local heating across the body are similar to the forearm, except for the abdomen, which was attenuated. Further, sex does not modulate these responses in young adults. Support or Funding Information Funding support: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (held by Dr. Kenny).

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 JournalSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207